|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 14, 2011 9:31:29 GMT -5
wrong again. i have nothing to do with it. it is the murderer, and the murderer alone, who voluntarily made the choice. YOU are the one saying that the life of a murderer is of equal value to the life of the five year old girl that he raped and murdered No, you can't have it both ways. The law is made on behalf of the people - that's you - by politicians elected by the people - you again. Its no deterrent and there is no guarantee against a miscarriage of justice. This is the attitude which reminds me of the Islamic way. I never said anything about one life equating to another, a spurious argument at best. No sir, I said I am above the level of the common killer and I would add that thankfully, England is too. wrong yet AGAIN. of course it is a deterrent. i have yet to ever hear of an executed murderer ever killing again. obviously, that is the ONLY deterrence that matters. the deterrence lunacy is the stupidest anti death penalty argument you guys dream up, next to the innocent executed lunacy. you are definitely NOT above the level of a common killer. you DO, simply by advocating that a murderer live while a victim dies, put the life of the murderer as of more value than the victim.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 14, 2011 12:42:54 GMT -5
No, you can't have it both ways. The law is made on behalf of the people - that's you - by politicians elected by the people - you again. It no deterrent and there is no guarantee against a miscarriage of justice. This is the attitude which reminds me of the Islamic way. I never said anything about one life equating to another, a spurious argument at best. No sir, I said I am above the level of the common killer and I would add that thankfully, England is too. wrong yet AGAIN. of course it is a deterrent. i have yet to ever hear of an executed murderer ever killing again. obviously, that is the ONLY deterrence that matters. the deterrence lunacy is the stupidest anti death penalty argument you guys dream up, next to the innocent executed lunacy. you are definitely NOT above the level of a common killer. you DO, simply by advocating that a murderer live while a victim dies, put the life of the murderer as of more value than the victim. Its is a deterrent? So how many murders were there in the US last year? If there was only one its no deterrent. Deterrence is stopping the act a first time, not a second time. I am above the knife wielding, gun toting common killer, I am way above the religious loon. I advocate a whole life tariff, some will argue that WLT is far worse than execution. The fact is you lap up the blood, we do not.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 20, 2011 12:23:36 GMT -5
wrong yet AGAIN. of course it is a deterrent. i have yet to ever hear of an executed murderer ever killing again. obviously, that is the ONLY deterrence that matters. the deterrence lunacy is the stupidest anti death penalty argument you guys dream up, next to the innocent executed lunacy. you are definitely NOT above the level of a common killer. you DO, simply by advocating that a murderer live while a victim dies, put the life of the murderer as of more value than the victim. Its is a deterrent? So how many murders were there in the US last year? If there was only one its no deterrent. Deterrence is stopping the act a first time, not a second time. I am above the knife wielding, gun toting common killer, I am way above the religious loon. I advocate a whole life tariff, some will argue that WLT is far worse than execution. The fact is you lap up the blood, we do not. it has nothing to do with blood lad. it is about doing the morally correct thing, which is making sure the murderer is dead
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 20, 2011 13:27:33 GMT -5
Its is a deterrent? So how many murders were there in the US last year? If there was only one its no deterrent. Deterrence is stopping the act a first time, not a second time. I am above the knife wielding, gun toting common killer, I am way above the religious loon. I advocate a whole life tariff, some will argue that WLT is far worse than execution. The fact is you lap up the blood, we do not. it has nothing to do with blood lad. it is about doing the morally correct thing, which is making sure the murderer is dead So 'your' moral value is a universal, is it? No, it isn't. Killing is not morally right, period.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Mar 20, 2011 19:07:27 GMT -5
Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong? ~Holly Near
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~Voltaire, War
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 21, 2011 6:59:21 GMT -5
it has nothing to do with blood lad. it is about doing the morally correct thing, which is making sure the murderer is dead So 'your' moral value is a universal, is it? No, it isn't. Killing is not morally right, period. and, you are quite incorrect again. MURDER is never morally right, period. there is a lot of killing that certainly IS morally right. if you try to break into my house and i kill you, i am certainly morally right. killing the libyan imbecile, and his worthless kid, as well as all others of his ilk, is definitely morally right.. executing a murderer is obviously morally right. you have to learn to differentiate between killing and murder. all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. THAT is definitely morally right
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 21, 2011 7:36:04 GMT -5
So 'your' moral value is a universal, is it? No, it isn't. Killing is not morally right, period. and, you are quite incorrect again. MURDER is never morally right, period. there is a lot of killing that certainly IS morally right. if you try to break into my house and i kill you, i am certainly morally right. killing the libyan imbecile, and his worthless kid, as well as all others of his ilk, is definitely morally right.. executing a murderer is obviously morally right. you have to learn to differentiate between killing and murder. all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. THAT is definitely morally right Let's face it, a society that hasn't left the wild west behind it is not the best place to look for moral guidance. Live by the gun, die by the gun, that is the American way and you are welcome to it. There are times when it may be necessary to kill in self-defence, that is not in question, but this is about Nitrogen Asphyxiation Executions, isn't it? Killing by the state. Military action is not included in all this, yet you try to conflate it as usual. If Gaddafi et fils are killed it will be as a result of a tomahawk missile or a thousand pound bomb, not some cowboy with a six-shooter. The more you speak about your moral justification for killing people the more abhorrent your country becomes to civilised people and that is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 21, 2011 10:44:15 GMT -5
and, you are quite incorrect again. MURDER is never morally right, period. there is a lot of killing that certainly IS morally right. if you try to break into my house and i kill you, i am certainly morally right. killing the libyan imbecile, and his worthless kid, as well as all others of his ilk, is definitely morally right.. executing a murderer is obviously morally right. you have to learn to differentiate between killing and murder. all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. THAT is definitely morally right Let's face it, a society that hasn't left the wild west behind it is not the best place to look for moral guidance. Live by the gun, die by the gun, that is the American way and you are welcome to it. There are times when it may be necessary to kill in self-defence, that is not in question, but this is about Nitrogen Asphyxiation Executions, isn't it? Killing by the state. Military action is not included in all this, yet you try to conflate it as usual. If Gaddafi et fils are killed it will be as a result of a tomahawk missile or a thousand pound bomb, not some cowboy with a six-shooter. The more you speak about your moral justification for killing people the more abhorrent your country becomes to civilised people and that is a shame. still wrong. execution IS self defense. there is NO boo hoo, kum ba ya circle jerk way around that FACT. civilized people do not embrace murderers it doesn't matter how ghaddafi, or any of the other trash are killed. the tragedy is that there are those who are so insane that they actually think killing them would somehow be wrong
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 21, 2011 11:07:54 GMT -5
"still wrong. execution IS self defense. "
No it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 21, 2011 16:05:24 GMT -5
"still wrong. execution IS self defense. " No it isn't. of course, it IS. execution is the most intelliegnet, moral, and rational way of dealing with totally worthless garbage who murder. it is nothing more than society defending itself properly
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Jun 2, 2011 12:44:48 GMT -5
Very interesting....never even heard about this method.
Some who posted here didn't really read it....there is no sense of asphixiation...one just passes out.
So far, I like it....I'm not interested in "revenge". I just want to take the worst of the worst murderers out of the innocent-killing business. The easiest, least uncomfortable way possible.
This sounds like "it"....so far.
Beheading is barbaric....the head realizes where it is for several seconds....the eyelids react normally to the eyes being touched.... the condemned SEE the device, must anticipate the blade & feel their head rolling around in the basket.... Nothing humane about it....it's horrific.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Jun 2, 2011 12:57:01 GMT -5
wrong yet AGAIN. of course it is a deterrent. i have yet to ever hear of an executed murderer ever killing again. obviously, that is the ONLY deterrence that matters. the deterrence lunacy is the stupidest anti death penalty argument you guys dream up, next to the innocent executed lunacy. you are definitely NOT above the level of a common killer. you DO, simply by advocating that a murderer live while a victim dies, put the life of the murderer as of more value than the victim. Its is a deterrent? So how many murders were there in the US last year? If there was only one its no deterrent. Deterrence is stopping the act a first time, not a second time. I am above the knife wielding, gun toting common killer, I am way above the religious loon. I advocate a whole life tariff, some will argue that WLT is far worse than execution. The fact is you lap up the blood, we do not. fretslider.....Jim is correct....ANYTHING that stops ANY murder is a deterrent.... Comparing murder rates from one country to another country, as it relates to any one factor is ludicrous. You must compare the SAME country, before and after the factor has been injected into the compared mix. The murder rate in America has gone down, in every state that has legalized the death penalty... Same is true with concealed weapons. How could you call "life" a deterrent, but not the death penalty?...makes no sense whatever, when you consider that 99% of all DP- sentenced murderers fight like demons to achieve stays & pardons. The plain truth is.....sentenced to "life", murderers escape, and are pardoned, are regularly paroled, and kill guards & other prisoners.... then, kill innocents...rape & kill children. No, I'd rather "err" on the side of innocents, especially our children....than agonize over the death of a POS murderer....they just don't "rate" much consideration with me.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 2, 2011 13:04:44 GMT -5
How many were there, actually?
If there weren't 50 million, perhaps it is a deterrent....
??
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 2, 2011 13:06:38 GMT -5
So far, I like it....I'm not interested in "revenge". I just want to take the worst of the worst murderers out of the innocent-killing business. The easiest, least uncomfortable way possible. Is that the whole truth? I ask because a whole life tariff takes the worst of the murderers out the innocent-killing business.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Jun 3, 2011 16:27:13 GMT -5
So far, I like it....I'm not interested in "revenge". I just want to take the worst of the worst murderers out of the innocent-killing business. The easiest, least uncomfortable way possible. Is that the whole truth? I ask because a whole life tariff takes the worst of the murderers out the innocent-killing business. No trubble...this just isn't true They escape, they are pardoned, they kill guards & prisoners. Many LWOP prisoners are actually, eventually paroled...in spite of their seemingly conclusive sentence.... However the true definition of conclusive....is an execution...don't you agree
|
|