Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Death Penalty?

Ashley17
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 2:55:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What do you think of the death penalty? Should it remain or cease? So you think it's right or wrong and please elaborate and explain your reasoning! Thank you and I would love to see someone debate this topic.
Ashley Bruneus
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 7:08:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes, but only in the most severe cases.

Such as for terrorists, or serial killers.

The reason being that their continued exsistance while morally questionable is no longer beneficial to society, and rehabilitation would be of no use.

People who get sentenced for times which would span past their lifetimes, such as a man who gets sentenced for 200 years with no chance of bail, should be given the option to choose capital punishment instead of the normal time.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Ashley17
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 9:18:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 7:08:22 PM, Nik wrote:
Yes, but only in the most severe cases.

Such as for terrorists, or serial killers.

The reason being that their continued exsistance while morally questionable is no longer beneficial to society, and rehabilitation would be of no use.

People who get sentenced for times which would span past their lifetimes, such as a man who gets sentenced for 200 years with no chance of bail, should be given the option to choose capital punishment instead of the normal time.

I agree but than again, how can a human take another human's life, isn't that for God to decide? It is still considered a sin and their is severe consequences.
Ashley Bruneus
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 10:05:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
did we have the death penalty when our founding fathers started this country?

i find everything that said yes but no one seems to be sure... anyone!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I support in principle the death penalty for murder, attempted mass murder (failed terrorism) and the most egregious instances of rape.

To me it just makes sense, if a dog turns wild and mauls a child you put it down (the dog that is). Why should we pay for a persons permanent incarceration?

The only argument against the death penalty that carries any weight for me is that just as innocent people are falsely convicted so to will innocent people be executed. Maybe a death penalty should only be used where the jury recommends it, the judge agrees, a further panel approves it and then finally the head of state signs of on it. Or reserved only for those rare people who clearly need to die (Osama bin ladens, Myra Hindley, Rumsfeld etc).

As an atheist the religious argument holds no water for me, but the bible allows for killing, just not murder. By definition a state execution is not murder!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:30:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

By definition a state execution is not murder!

I'd be interested if you could expand on this idea Cerebral, unless you're defining murder in purely legal rather than moral terms, I don't see how any level of authority makes execution not count as murder.

I think that while the strongest argument is the risk of wrongfull conviction as you say, another very strong argument against capital punishment is that it is morally bankrupt and hypocritical.

You can't teach that killing is wrong by killing.
SemperFi2MyGuy
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 9:10:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am personally against the death penalty.
I just feel that we, as humans, have no right to decide when someone's life ends.
I empathize with victims and their families and can see why the may favor it.

(Speaking a US....)
I also don't find it a reasonable punishment when it comes to costs for the American taxpayer.
The costs are ridiculous compared to a life sentence.
This is because of all the court costs that come with a death sentence case, not the actual act of putting them to death.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 9:57:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:30:41 AM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

By definition a state execution is not murder!

I'd be interested if you could expand on this idea Cerebral, unless you're defining murder in purely legal rather than moral terms, I don't see how any level of authority makes execution not count as murder.

Yes I was, (albeit slightly tongue in cheek).


I think that while the strongest argument is the risk of wrongfull conviction as you say, another very strong argument against capital punishment is that it is morally bankrupt and hypocritical.


That is not an argument, those words have no real logical value. How is it morally bankrupt, you are physically removing evil? How is it hyprocritical, it could only hyprocritical if the actions of a serial murderer were morally the same as a state executioner in a liberal democracy who only executes people after being convicted of a capital crime.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:23:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

To me it just makes sense, if a dog turns wild and mauls a child you put it down (the dog that is). Why should we pay for a persons permanent incarceration?

The cost argument doesn't really fly, considering numerous sources show executions to be more expensive than life sentences.

As for your animal comparison, surely you realize the foolishness of comparing rights across species in this way. Please elaborate on how the crimes you listed (murder, terrorism, rape) warrant such harshness by the state.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:28:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:23:54 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

The cost argument doesn't really fly, considering numerous sources show executions to be more expensive than life sentences.


where did you find that?
most of the studies i see, show it is cheaper to execute.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 11:38:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:28:34 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/8/2009 11:23:54 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

The cost argument doesn't really fly, considering numerous sources show executions to be more expensive than life sentences.


where did you find that?
most of the studies i see, show it is cheaper to execute.

The absoluteness of the death penalty requires that every legal avenue be exhausted before it is implemented. As such, the costs are far greater than alternatives sentences. Google "cost of the death penalty" and you'll be good to go =D

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
http://www.deathpenalty.org...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 12:13:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 9:57:54 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:30:41 AM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

By definition a state execution is not murder!

I'd be interested if you could expand on this idea Cerebral, unless you're defining murder in purely legal rather than moral terms, I don't see how any level of authority makes execution not count as murder.

Yes I was, (albeit slightly tongue in cheek).

Ok, cool.


I think that while the strongest argument is the risk of wrongfull conviction as you say, another very strong argument against capital punishment is that it is morally bankrupt and hypocritical.


That is not an argument, those words have no real logical value. How is it morally bankrupt, you are physically removing evil? How is it hyprocritical, it could only hyprocritical if the actions of a serial murderer were morally the same as a state executioner in a liberal democracy who only executes people after being convicted of a capital crime.

It's a pretty simple argument really, as I said in my first post: You can't teach that killing is wrong by killing.

"you are physically removing evil"
Yes but only by performing an equal evil yourself. Two wrongs doth not a right make.
You are not removing the evil deeds that have already been done, you are adding to them.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 1:12:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Texas
Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases

That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)"

wow...
Ashley17
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 1:33:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I support in principle the death penalty for murder, attempted mass murder (failed terrorism) and the most egregious instances of rape.

To me it just makes sense, if a dog turns wild and mauls a child you put it down (the dog that is). Why should we pay for a persons permanent incarceration?

The only argument against the death penalty that carries any weight for me is that just as innocent people are falsely convicted so to will innocent people be executed. Maybe a death penalty should only be used where the jury recommends it, the judge agrees, a further panel approves it and then finally the head of state signs of on it. Or reserved only for those rare people who clearly need to die (Osama bin ladens, Myra Hindley, Rumsfeld etc).

As an atheist the religious argument holds no water for me, but the bible allows for killing, just not murder. By definition a state execution is not murder!

Than again innocent people are killed because they are wrongly convicted. So as you can see it's not an accurate and innocent people are getting killed.
Ashley Bruneus
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 1:41:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If we start saying it costs less to execute than to imprison, than we are valuing the life of a human. Which means abortion is defendable (We have no idea how valuable that child may be, and he is in fact leaching at the moment)
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 1:57:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's a pretty simple argument really, as I said in my first post: You can't teach that killing is wrong by killing.

Murder/=Killing/=Euthanisia

"you are physically removing evil"
Yes but only by performing an equal evil yourself. Two wrongs doth not a right make.

Murder is wrong. Killing and Euthanasia, however, are debatable. You may think that I'm just using semantics but I'm not. However, if someone wishes to die because they're in pain, they are euthanized. This is not considered "evil". Neither is killing people in wars or for protection. The circumstance of the death is what makes the act wrong or not. Killing someone because he's going to kill your family is not considered "wrong" but killing someone because he already killed your family is considered "wrong". Why is this?

You are not removing the evil deeds that have already been done, you are adding to them.

You are preventing that person from ever committing "evil" again as well as setting an example for others of what the consequences of such actions will be.

To reiterate, it is not the action but the circumstances surrounding it as well as outside perception that determine whether an act is "wrong".
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 2:10:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 1:57:22 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
It's a pretty simple argument really, as I said in my first post: You can't teach that killing is wrong by killing.

Murder/=Killing/=Euthanisia

"you are physically removing evil"
Yes but only by performing an equal evil yourself. Two wrongs doth not a right make.

Murder is wrong. Killing and Euthanasia, however, are debatable. You may think that I'm just using semantics but I'm not. However, if someone wishes to die because they're in pain, they are euthanized. This is not considered "evil". Neither is killing people in wars or for protection. The circumstance of the death is what makes the act wrong or not. Killing someone because he's going to kill your family is not considered "wrong" but killing someone because he already killed your family is considered "wrong". Why is this?

You are not removing the evil deeds that have already been done, you are adding to them.

You are preventing that person from ever committing "evil" again as well as setting an example for others of what the consequences of such actions will be.

To reiterate, it is not the action but the circumstances surrounding it as well as outside perception that determine whether an act is "wrong".

Wrong + Wrong =/= Right

Wrong + Wrong = Wrong2
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 2:18:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
With the cost of the death penalty today, I'm leaning towards maximum security lock-up. If the price ever goes down, though, and we eliminate the risk of convicting the wrong person...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 2:29:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I support hard labour as opposed to the Death Penalty. If they work, they can reduce their costs or even make a profit for society. And no-one will want to join gangland if you have to mine rocks for 30 year :).
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 2:32:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 1:57:22 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:


Murder is wrong. Killing and Euthanasia, however, are debatable. You may think that I'm just using semantics but I'm not.

Well you are actually, if you're labelling unlawful premeditated killing as murder but lawful premeditated killing as something else.

Murder is not a purely legal term, like homicide, manslaughter etc. Bringing up Euthanasia is way off topic unless we're limiting the discussion to the few criminals so wracked with guilt that they want to die.

However, if someone wishes to die because they're in pain, they are euthanized. This is not considered "evil". Neither is killing people in wars or for protection.

I concur on protection but disagree regarding the majority of wars.

The circumstance of the death is what makes the act wrong or not. Killing someone because he's going to kill your family is not considered "wrong" but killing someone because he already killed your family is considered "wrong". Why is this?

Because in the first instance you are acting defensively to prevent a greater evil, whereas in the second you are acting vengefully with no positive outcome. It will not bring your family back to destroy their killer so it is incomparable to saving them.


You are preventing that person from ever committing "evil" again as well as setting an example for others of what the consequences of such actions will be.

If you are in a position to execute someone they are already at your mercy and can be prevented from acting the same way again by other means. The only example execution sets is that might is right.

To reiterate, it is not the action but the circumstances surrounding it as well as outside perception that determine whether an act is "wrong".

Hence the justification of defense. I personally believe that certain acts such as torture and rape are never truly justified, whatever the circumstances.

How do you feel about the other arguments in this thread? Wrongful conviction, cost etc.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 2:50:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 11:23:54 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

To me it just makes sense, if a dog turns wild and mauls a child you put it down (the dog that is). Why should we pay for a persons permanent incarceration?

The cost argument doesn't really fly, considering numerous sources show executions to be more expensive than life sentences.

It was not a cost argument, it was a moral one. Why should my tax money be spent to sustain a murderer or rapist. I'd much rather pay for them to wheeled into an operating theatre and to be used as an organ donor.

Okay, I am not actually trolling, that is my opinion. I accept I am completely out of whack on the issue with most people.


As for your animal comparison, surely you realize the foolishness of comparing rights across species in this way. Please elaborate on how the crimes you listed (murder, terrorism, rape) warrant such harshness by the state.

I am not sure I can find the way to express it, but the justification for it is blinding to me. I could equally turn around and ask you to elaborate on how the crimes I listed can warrant such leniency as to keep the person alive?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 2:52:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 12:13:25 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 9:57:54 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:30:41 AM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 2:36:19 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

By definition a state execution is not murder!

I'd be interested if you could expand on this idea Cerebral, unless you're defining murder in purely legal rather than moral terms, I don't see how any level of authority makes execution not count as murder.

Yes I was, (albeit slightly tongue in cheek).

Ok, cool.


I think that while the strongest argument is the risk of wrongfull conviction as you say, another very strong argument against capital punishment is that it is morally bankrupt and hypocritical.


That is not an argument, those words have no real logical value. How is it morally bankrupt, you are physically removing evil? How is it hyprocritical, it could only hyprocritical if the actions of a serial murderer were morally the same as a state executioner in a liberal democracy who only executes people after being convicted of a capital crime.

It's a pretty simple argument really, as I said in my first post: You can't teach that killing is wrong by killing.

"you are physically removing evil"
Yes but only by performing an equal evil yourself. Two wrongs doth not a right make.
You are not removing the evil deeds that have already been done, you are adding to them.

I think I may be a utilitarian with regards morality, the morality of act can be judged on its outcome. If you kill an 'evil' person (subjective I know) there is one less evil person in the world. Therefore the act is good.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 3:07:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 2:50:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

It was not a cost argument, it was a moral one. Why should my tax money be spent to sustain a murderer or rapist. I'd much rather pay for them to wheeled into an operating theatre and to be used as an organ donor.

Okay, I am not actually trolling, that is my opinion. I accept I am completely out of whack on the issue with most people.

So the issue is not that the death penalty incurs greater costs, but rather that if you should pay at all, you would prefer for it to be toward a system you agree with? In that case, I must ask you again to elaborate on how you feel these crimes justify the punishment (be it death or medical experimentation).

I am not sure I can find the way to express it, but the justification for it is blinding to me. I could equally turn around and ask you to elaborate on how the crimes I listed can warrant such leniency as to keep the person alive?

If I believe that no body, whether it be an individual, court, or government, has the right to take a life, my position is justified. A murder may warrant punishment but should not eliminate the perpetrator's own right to life. I suppose you would argue it should?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 7:55:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 1:57:22 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
It's a pretty simple argument really, as I said in my first post: You can't teach that killing is wrong by killing.

Law is the teacher; the death penalty is a deterrent/consequence of ignoring the lesson.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 8:24:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 7:55:34 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 9/8/2009 1:57:22 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
It's a pretty simple argument really, as I said in my first post: You can't teach that killing is wrong by killing.

Law is the teacher; the death penalty is a deterrent/consequence of ignoring the lesson.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. One of my recent debates regarding the death penalty provided the source which proved that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Here are my arguments against the death penalty:

1) It is illogical to show that killing is wrong by killing the convicted.
2) The death penalty violates the convict's right to life.
3) Hammurabi code: An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.
4) Morality: pretty obvious on this one.
5) It just does not make sense to counter murder with murder.

I would have come up with better arguments, but I am beat...
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 8:52:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
As feverish has basically said, I think it's important that we do not speak strictly in legal terms when we're debating the death penalty. If we are to talk about the law, I think we should rather talk about the rationale behind the law. Much of the basis behind the law is that it violates the unalienable right to life. Now, if we are to accept this rationale from the state, it seems as if we would hold the state to the same standard.
Looking at it from various moral perspectives, it would seem that the death penalty would be somewhat acceptable if it actually deterred murder and other crimes punishable by the death penalty. However, there's no evidence to suggest that it does. It is a cruel policy, and it serves no justice.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 10:21:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 8:24:27 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:

The death penalty is not a deterrent. One of my recent debates regarding the death penalty provided the source which proved that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Here are my arguments against the death penalty:

1) It is illogical to show that killing is wrong by killing the convicted.
2) The death penalty violates the convict's right to life.
3) Hammurabi code: An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.
4) Morality: pretty obvious on this one.
5) It just does not make sense to counter murder with murder.

I would have come up with better arguments, but I am beat...

I wasn't arguing the merits/statistics of the death penalty; just the responsibilities, as per the post to which I responded.

I stand by what I said.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 1:30:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 3:07:33 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 9/8/2009 2:50:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

It was not a cost argument, it was a moral one. Why should my tax money be spent to sustain a murderer or rapist. I'd much rather pay for them to wheeled into an operating theatre and to be used as an organ donor.

Okay, I am not actually trolling, that is my opinion. I accept I am completely out of whack on the issue with most people.

So the issue is not that the death penalty incurs greater costs,

Not to me no.

but rather that if you should pay at all, you would prefer for it to be toward a
system you agree with? In that case, I must ask you again to elaborate on how
you feel these crimes justify the punishment (be it death or medical
experimentation).

I am not sure I can find the way to express it, but the justification for it is blinding to me. I could equally turn around and ask you to elaborate on how the crimes I listed can warrant such leniency as to keep the person alive?

If I believe that no body, whether it be an individual, court, or government, has the right to take a life, my position is justified. A murder may warrant punishment but should not eliminate the perpetrator's own right to life. I suppose you would argue it should?

I basically feel that certain actions should be taken as effectively a resignation from the human race. It is not a case that we must kill certain people that have committed certain crimes, it is the case that a serial killer, terrorist or violent rapist deserves nothing from us, has no value to us. We can't let them free, we can't be expected to sustain their lives if all they are going to do is sit in a cell until they get released by lunatic fringe liberals.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2009 10:19:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/9/2009 1:30:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I basically feel that certain actions should be taken as effectively a resignation from the human race. It is not a case that we must kill certain people that have committed certain crimes, it is the case that a serial killer, terrorist or violent rapist deserves nothing from us, has no value to us. We can't let them free, we can't be expected to sustain their lives if all they are going to do is sit in a cell until they get released by lunatic fringe liberals.

If your criterion for preserving one's life is their societal contributions, you'll be needing to extend that list. I'm assuming you'd agree that the homeless, mentally ill, severely physically disabled, anarchists, hermits, any career criminal, and Rush Limbaugh also deserve death.

If you argue that familial or social connections give value to these individuals, the same could obviously be said for the criminals. If, instead, the difference is committing criminal activity, I must once again ask why you've chosen this particular punishment for those particular crimes =D
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...