does anyone know of a forum in which members are banned for parroting the same thing over and over? a sort of "anti-chanting clause"? if so, i am so outta here
Be fair. If he's parroting the same thing over and over, what were we doing when we refused to stop asking him to define things he claimed he already defined? You can always leave the debate.
__________________ "Men curse the Communist Party, but eventually it may release them. If hell were endless, then God would be worse than our Secret Police."--Pastor Valentin
If we are going to put someone to death, then the word "Reasonable" should be taken out of the phrase (beyond a reasonable doubt) and substituted with "any"
there is no debate. thats the point. if you apply the "if you dont like it, leave" phylosophy to someone who crashes a thread and ruins it, we might as well not report trolls either. its a problem to be fixed, not accepted, so that we may redefine what a debate is, into "repeat same baseless opinion over and over until all discussion comes to a halt and you are the center of attention".
people like this need scrutiny as a deterrant, or they spread like a plague to other topics....heh....speaking of deterrants
Wow, the ego, other people have the right to think differently then you do. I understand you don't share my opinion, but in a free and open society I am still entitled to it.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
In many ways it already is but that still doesn’t mean there is human error and other circumstances that are in play but you still haven’t answered the questions? How is someone locked up for life going to commit the crime again? What proof do you have that capital punishment is a deterrent, besides your own personal opinion?
See, I'm glad that you want to be extra careful about this, but if you're going to make murder a capital crime, and rape and child-mollestations, I think that those two ideas together might actually make the world more dangerous, becaue you'll have to release people who would have been convicted of murder or rape or child-mollestation under the "reasonable doubt" standard, but can't quite be convicted under the "any doubt" standard.
__________________ "Men curse the Communist Party, but eventually it may release them. If hell were endless, then God would be worse than our Secret Police."--Pastor Valentin
Okay let me put it the other way, If a DA is goign for the death penalty the burden of proof on the prosecutuions case should be more strict.
But in any event, Like I said I will work my entire legal career to build support and re-instate the death penalty in canada and make sure that murderers and Pedophiles (defined under Canadian law as people that attack children in a sexual manner) are the first on the chopping block.
But I'm obviously not going to convince you and I assure you, your not going to persuade me, so I'm not sure what the point of debating is.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
Well the problem that I see if you can’t convince a bunch of people on a public forum that these people deserver the death penitently then how do you think you will convince a jury or get the laws changed? You will need to provided evidence and reasons to support your claims which you haven’t, I’m sorry but you really need to work on your debating and logic on this subject if you are to succeed in your plans because we are exactly the type of people you will have to sway.
No, the type of people I will have to sway is a comission of judges known as the Supreme Court of Canada.
You think in terms of emotion and humanitarian concern. They think in terms of law and concern for protecting society. Something tells me they will be a more receptive crowd and I will have more support from politicains. Open Debate isn't the only way to get laws changed.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 12th, 2006 05:50 PM
what is that supposed to mean?
