|
Post by fretslider on Oct 3, 2010 14:36:39 GMT -5
Its definitely a talent you guys have, there. It's difficult to argue that it's irrelevant to the basic issue. After all, was Pol Pot any less a murderer because he only gave the order? Stalin? Mao? Mugabe? That's my essential point as far as that side is concerned. Oh no, not so fast oh venerable MOTM. We are discussing the death penalty and once again Godwin's law is employed to muddy the waters. As far as I can see we both agree that the DP is a no, no.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 5, 2010 6:42:21 GMT -5
i would go along with that...if that is what happened...but in the uk that is not what happens...here in the uk they are feather bedded and lead a life which is comparativly better than many law abiding who have never committed a crime in their lives...hindly for example..decorated homly cell..her own bed linen..curtains...unlimmited acess to education and books ..sexual partners,,days out and the best medical treatment now that in my book is not punishment...certainly they are not free to make decissions etc etc....but its hardly punishment for the crimes they committed and i have no desire to see my taxes go to keeping these people alive .....they are of no use to society..they add nothing """Why did West and Shipman kill themselves?""" possibly because both were deprived of the one thing which gave meaning to their lives..ie the kick they got out of murdering..and possibly because they were both bullies and bullies are cowards
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 5, 2010 6:47:38 GMT -5
I simply cannot buy the argument that Hitler did not kill anyone. He gave the order and he was every bit as guilty as a Mafia capo who orders a 'hit' on a rival gangster. i dont think its you cannot.... but more you will not buy into hitler didnt kill anyone.... giving orders to kill is not the same as killing...the result is the same.....but the degree of responsibility for murder is wholly on the head of the murderer..which is why there are degrees of responsibility in law for causing deaths.. that is not to say i dont consider them[hitler/stalin etc] responsible for the deaths of millions...its just the phrasing i dont agree with ..they are not murderers in the sense of the types the threat is discussing
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 5, 2010 6:56:33 GMT -5
i would go along with that...if that is what happened...but in the uk that is not what happens...here in the uk they are feather bedded and lead a life which is comparativly better than many law abiding who have never committed a crime in their lives...hindly for example..decorated homly cell..her own bed linen..curtains...unlimmited acess to education and books ..sexual partners,,days out and the best medical treatment now that in my book is not punishment...certainly they are not free to make decissions etc etc....but its hardly punishment for the crimes they committed and i have no desire to see my taxes go to keeping these people alive .....they are of no use to society..they add nothing """Why did West and Shipman kill themselves?""" possibly because both were deprived of the one thing which gave meaning to their lives..ie the kick they got out of murdering..and possibly because they were both bullies and bullies are cowards Lock 'em and make them work. Simple. I'm not advocating the bleeding heart liberal attitude of the judiciary. It seems to me that life behind bars was a punishment West and Shipman could not contemplate.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 5, 2010 7:07:50 GMT -5
;)i dont think i would mistake you for a bleeding heart...as i say...if they got real punishment...but they dont look at brady for example..what a waste of public funds
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Oct 5, 2010 8:49:02 GMT -5
i would go along with that...if that is what happened...but in the uk that is not what happens...here in the uk they are feather bedded and lead a life which is comparativly better than many law abiding who have never committed a crime in their lives...hindly for example..decorated homly cell..her own bed linen..curtains...unlimmited acess to education and books ..sexual partners,,days out and the best medical treatment now that in my book is not punishment...certainly they are not free to make decissions etc etc....but its hardly punishment for the crimes they committed and i have no desire to see my taxes go to keeping these people alive .....they are of no use to society..they add nothing """Why did West and Shipman kill themselves?""" possibly because both were deprived of the one thing which gave meaning to their lives..ie the kick they got out of murdering..and possibly because they were both bullies and bullies are cowards Sometimes it seems like the powers that be think it's either kill them gently or kill them with kindness. I don't advocate either approach. There should be no freebees, no second chances, IMO. When we release murderers, we make their first murder victim a one-off. It's especially galling that we pick out a few to send to their deaths while freeing most of the rest. Nah........ lock them all up. Guess we don't want to be that safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 9:57:43 GMT -5
Maybe in America that statement might have some credence, but it does not here. No, it does in Europe as well. You terror-bombed civilian targets in World War 2. I don't see you apologizing to the survivors of those you deliberately put to death. So if the state gives itself permission to kill that's alright, then? It's alright to those in that state. Others can't say #hit about it. Whether you like it or not, the nation-state exists to define matters of life and death. It alone has the moral authority to kill people. The people themselves give the state that authority. If it didn't, society would not exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 9:58:47 GMT -5
I simply cannot buy the argument that Hitler did not kill anyone. He gave the order and he was every bit as guilty as a Mafia capo who orders a 'hit' on a rival gangster. i dont think its you cannot.... but more you will not buy into hitler didnt kill anyone.... giving orders to kill is not the same as killing...the result is the same.....but the degree of responsibility for murder is wholly on the head of the murderer..which is why there are degrees of responsibility in law for causing deaths.. that is not to say i dont consider them[hitler/stalin etc] responsible for the deaths of millions...its just the phrasing i dont agree with ..they are not murderers in the sense of the types the threat is discussing No, Mouse, I fear that it's YOU who simply can't accept that the person who gives an ORDER to kill is every bit as guilty - if not MORE so - than those who simply carry it out. By your logic a Mafia don who orders a 'hit' on a rival gangster is LESS guilty than the shooter. In the eyes of the law he IS a murderer. I am anything BUT a fan of the law or any form of authority but in that respect at least they have got it right. Teresa Lewis, for instance, was sentenced to death even though she hired hit men to carry out the murder. That is the simple reality. I might not support the death penalty but I am firmly convinced of two things that ARE directly relevant to it. One is that NOT all intentional killings ARE murder in the sense that the law currently regards it and that the law OUGHT to be changed to conform more closely to basic moral principles. The other is that someone who gets another person to carry out a murder is every bit as guilty as the one who actually does commit the act.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 6, 2010 3:11:03 GMT -5
they may be as guilty of causing deaths.....but havent exactly done the deed of the actual killing....
"""By your logic a Mafia don who orders a 'hit' on a rival gangster is LESS guilty than the shooter."""" no he is not less guilty...but he didnt COMMIT the killing......he ordered..he allowed...but he didnt actually kill he is complicit....
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Oct 6, 2010 15:53:52 GMT -5
the person who gives an ORDER to kill is every bit as guilty - if not MORE so - than those who simply carry it out. Well, I think that depends, Mike... was the person carrying out the order under duress? Was their life (or the lives of their loved ones) in jeopardy if the order/directive wasn't carried out? If/when the answer is 'no', then IMO, it's the person who actually chooses to kill who is guilty of murder ~ the law notwithstanding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2010 16:46:35 GMT -5
The majority of people who earn their living as Mafia hit men know EXACTLY what they are doing.
So too do the majority of Mafia dons.
Trying to throw buckets of whitewash over them and making out that they are NOT murderers is, frankly, pretty bizarre at best and downright hypocritical at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Oct 9, 2010 11:23:43 GMT -5
Well, I wasn't whitewashing that ~ murder is business as usual for them, and naturally remains murder.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 9, 2010 11:31:27 GMT -5
Maybe in America that statement might have some credence, but it does not here. No, it does in Europe as well. You terror-bombed civilian targets in World War 2. I don't see you apologizing to the survivors of those you deliberately put to death. So if the state gives itself permission to kill that's alright, then? It's alright to those in that state. Others can't say #hit about it. Whether you like it or not, the nation-state exists to define matters of life and death. It alone has the moral authority to kill people. The people themselves give the state that authority. If it didn't, society would not exist. Joseph, WW II cannot be compared to everyday domestic law, we've done that one before and I'm surprised you wheeled that red herring out again. The nation-state in this case does not have any authority - from the people or otherwise - to kill. Strangely, our society exists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2010 17:17:52 GMT -5
WW II cannot be compared to everyday domestic law Situational ethics, eh? Of course it can be compared. You chose, as a people, to bomb civilians. The circumstances, and the choice of civilians, do not matter. You selected people for extermination and you killed them. It was the right choice for all the right reasons, but it does prove my point -- the state reserves to itself the right to kill people. Unless you're a pacifist, you're simply picking and choosing who should be killed by the state, and under what circumstances you wish to kill. The nation-state in this case does not have any authority - from the people or otherwise - to kill. It does and always did. It simply isn't exercising that authority at the moment. Under the right circumstances, that could change.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 9, 2010 19:03:40 GMT -5
WW II cannot be compared to everyday domestic law Situational ethics, eh? Of course it can be compared. You chose, as a people, to bomb civilians. The circumstances, and the choice of civilians, do not matter. You selected people for extermination and you killed them. It was the right choice for all the right reasons, but it does prove my point -- the state reserves to itself the right to kill people. Unless you're a pacifist, you're simply picking and choosing who should be killed by the state, and under what circumstances you wish to kill. The nation-state in this case does not have any authority - from the people or otherwise - to kill. It does and always did. It simply isn't exercising that authority at the moment. Under the right circumstances, that could change. LOL Situational ethics! Very good, I like that. Very funny, but no of course it can't be compared. You don't have to be a pacifist to be against the death penalty. What a black and white world you live in. We don't do the death penalty, still, you have excellent company with China, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc
|
|