The Death Penalty

scb wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

O.k, so everyone except you.

As for violent resistance against occupation and the death penalty, maybe you can explain to me how they are the same thing?

They are not the same thing ... That was an example to illustrate the dangers of making assumptions. People could have asked what she meant by the question. I admire people like Starfall who retain their moral compass even in the face of massive tragedy, but many people probably cannot accurately state that their feelings on this sort of an issue would NEVER change.

No one can ever know for sure that their feelings on ANY issue would NEVER change. Feelings are complicated like that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to make laws based on we believe to be right and wrong.

Also, I admire Starfall as well. And there are many other people out there who have experienced similar tragedy and are still against the death penalty.

there's a very good website out there that opposes the death penalty. they campaign on behalf of murder victims and their families.

their aim is "to put real faces on victim opposition to the death penalty by presenting photos and statements from survivors throughout the United States and around the world, along with photos of the murder victim and links to further information."

these a real people, real stories. absolutely heartbreaking. these people know what it's like to lose someone they loved very much, and they are completely against the death penalty.


http://www.mvfhr.org/victims-stories

Perhaps your comments are a little closer to the truth than the other posters', but in my mind, at some point or in such matters, all these things break down into reasons and justifications for killing.. which directly or indirectly...and both are crimes.. merely different degrees of the same wrong doing.

mikepegg44 wrote:

too bad you have so little trust in the individual soldiers who fight every day. MANY as you put it do not murder unarmed women and children. That is a ridiculous overstatement that you should take back. If you cannot see the difference in what a soldier does and what a murderer does than I feel sorry for you.

Seems like you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, I really am not trying to be difficult with you or anything. Just so I can get to know where you are coming from a little bit, are you a sociology major by any chance? Not making fun of that in anyway, I am one too. Just seems like you have a mind for the social sciences

FiveB247x wrote:

Perhaps your comments are a little closer to the truth than the other posters', but in my mind, at some point or in such matters, all these things break down into reasons and justifications for killing.. which directly or indirectly...and both are crimes.. merely different degrees of the same wrong doing.

mikepegg44 wrote:

too bad you have so little trust in the individual soldiers who fight every day. MANY as you put it do not murder unarmed women and children. That is a ridiculous overstatement that you should take back. If you cannot see the difference in what a soldier does and what a murderer does than I feel sorry for you.

Seems like you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, I really am not trying to be difficult with you or anything. Just so I can get to know where you are coming from a little bit, are you a sociology major by any chance? Not making fun of that in anyway, I am one too. Just seems like you have a mind for the social sciences

understandable but than is there ever a justified killing? I happen to think so, but how about you?

If someone tries to kill you than you fight back.

Byrnzie wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Funny thing is, the same government that takes a moral high ground and acts like God by murdering it's own citizens in the name of 'justice', is also guilty of murdering over 1 million Iraqi's in an illegal occupation which continues as we speak.

Every day soldiers return home from Iraq and are treated like heroes, yet many of these people have just been murdering unarmed men, women and children.

too bad you have so little trust in the individual soldiers who fight every day. MANY as you put it do not murder unarmed women and children. That is a ridiculous overstatement that you should take back. If you cannot see the difference in what a soldier does and what a murderer does than I feel sorry for you.

Seems like you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, I really am not trying to be difficult with you or anything. Just so I can get to know where you are coming from a little bit, are you a sociology major by any chance? Not making fun of that in anyway, I am one too. Just seems like you have a mind for the social sciences

I'm not saying all the troops have behaved this way, but a fair percentage have. Just trying to place some perspective here is all.

And I'm a philosophy major.

first, what is a fair percentage? if you are talking about anything more than <1% you are really over estimating



That would have been my next guess, I minored in philosophy, which has given me more than any other degree. People really do underestimate the importance of reading and understanding philosophers. But i would maybe say to you, get past the conflict theorists. Seems like you have a strong grasp of them, and their philosophy on government and everything else, but it isn't as simple as Marx would have you believe. Not calling you a marxist in the negative sense but I get a lot of what he says out of what you say . . . if that makes sense at all

Byrnzie wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

first, what is a fair percentage? if you are talking about anything more than <1% you are really over estimating

I have no idea, but when seeing such things as the 'Winter Soldier Testimonies' I get the impression that random killing of civilians was a common occurrence. Also, one million Iraqi's had to have been killed by someone, and according to the casualty surveys aerial bombardment was the leading cause of death amongst Iraqi civilians.

mikepegg44 wrote:

That would have been my next guess, I minored in philosophy, which has given me more than any other degree. People really do underestimate the importance of reading and understanding philosophers. But i would maybe say to you, get past the conflict theorists. Seems like you have a strong grasp of them, and their philosophy on government and everything else, but it isn't as simple as Marx would have you believe. Not calling you a marxist in the negative sense but I get a lot of what he says out of what you say . . . if that makes sense at all

I've actually never read Marx. Despite appearances, I really have little interest in politics.

At university I read mainly Kant, Nietzsche, and the Continental philosophers like Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, e.t.c.

I am not talking about politics, I am talking about government. I don't think you can say you have no interest in government. Also, I find it strange you made it through without having to read marx. You should pick up some, he has interesting topics and thoughts. Nietzsche is similar but you cannot replace marx himself. Check it out it is worth the read if you still like to read that is. I know when I finished I was ready to never see a book again

Do you apply this same logic from the other side's view point? That killing American combatants isn't committing murder and isn't wrong?

mikepegg44 wrote:

right, agreed. I wouldn't call a war self defense either, but if you are killing enemy combatants you are not committing murder and I don't believe it is wrong. If you murder someone in cold blood and there is no shred of doubt, than I have no problem with the death penalty. However, because of our system and inherent flaws in it, I just don't think we can implement it without killing at least one innocent person, which makes it too big of a risk.

Ok fair enough... How does "collateral damage", bystanders and similar fit into this equation? At some point or level, someone is responsible - correct?

mikepegg44 wrote:

yep, when a service man or woman is killed in the line of duty it isn't murder.