Death Penalty

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, but then the analogy is unfairly positive.

It is also analogous to "Kill one person every once in a while in a gang rape. You no longer gang rape people because of one death?"

It gives you the false premise that the death penalties are morally the same as life saving operations.

Though, even besides the point, my answer still stands, if every life saving operation on top of a possible botch also kills a person, then yes, even without the botch I would stop them.

would you give up on playing video games because you found one that you couldn't beat/didn't enjoy?

"Yes if that video game killed someone."

Originally posted by Creshosk
The point wasn't that it was morally the same the point was the desired result. you already want the apple or the life saving operation or in this case the execution. would you stop doing what you wanted because of a rare chance for screw up? Regardless of what that other thing is.

would you give up on playing video games because you found one that you couldn't beat/didn't enjoy?

"Yes if that video game killed someone."

No "Yes, if every video game kills someone". At least get the analogy straight.

Originally posted by Robtard
You go, boy.

I'm not sure what you mean there. I was kind of agreeing with your suggestion.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, killing and murder are two different things, as fact.

I gathered that that was your point, already.

Originally posted by Robtard
Would they be same Christian-retards who argue that abortion is also murder?

Absolutely.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here's a better idea, why don't YOU tell me some examples? Yes, yes, I see your "I'm a bad-ass, cuz I don't gives a shit about life.", I just don't believe it.

A person claims to have committed the crime and provides evidence that matches him to the crime with NO doubt such as DNA evidence..finger prints.

These situations can definitely be argued...but please use your head and stop with this line of thought. You know what I am talking about and there are PLENTY of circumstances in which a crime can be 100% matched to a perp. Here are more:

Video surveillances. Money records. Object matching. (Shoes prints, murder weapons, etc.) Written documents. Recorded conversations.

Now argue the point that these are not individually able to match a person 100% to a crime. Great. No approach the subject with a holistic perspective.

Also, just because I am somewhat cynical and have slight enochlophobia and anthropophobia, does not mean I am a bad ass. But if you think that is bad ass, more power to ya.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, when you hold the stance that you "don't care fro human life", it's an easy assumption that you're pro-death penalty.

Not really. I specified that if I were to throw morals out the window. I use a moral compass quite often, hence why I am still on the fence. When it comes to making a decision on something like abortion or the death penalty, a person has to weigh societal norms, their own personal morals, and the positives and negatives of each side. (That's assuming that there isn't a third perspective that is an amalgamation of both sides....that is usually where I fall in on most issues.)

Originally posted by chithappens
If I ever supported the death penalty, I would shoot a guy in the head. Solves all econmic and pain longevity issues.

I think I can follow you with this one.

If they are executed by shooting a bullet right at the base of the skull with the shot fired upwards, it should be an extremely quick death. It MAY be painless. That shot would should sever the spinal cord and if it is shot at a sharp enough angle, it should F up the brain stem. (The brain stem controls things such as breathing, heart beating, etc.)

I don't know much about what happens when the spinal cord is severed in this way...but I can assume that the person probably loses consciousness immediately and not feel a thing. If anyone has info differently, I would love to "hear" it.

For the person that said shoot them in the head to say economic and longetivity problems.

That is not feasible. You have to allow the option for appeals and so forth because what if they are innocent?

A shitload of innocent people are either killed or found innocent right before they are killed all the time.

As long as human error exists in something irreversible, you can't possibly morally do it.

Originally posted by BigRed
For the person that said shoot them in the head to say economic and longetivity problems.

That is not feasible. You have to allow the option for appeals and so forth because what if they are innocent?

A shitload of innocent people are either killed or found innocent right before they are killed all the time.

As long as human error exists in something irreversible, you can't possibly morally do it.

Maybe should shoot you in the head and make a BigRed stain?????????

but yes...I agree. Very rarely can you get a 100% conviction. Do you have any numbers from a good source on how many are found innocent that are executed or found innocent while on death row? I would be more than happy to concede my argument with Robtard if it turns out to some absurd number.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe should shoot you in the head and make a BigRed stain?????????

but yes...I agree. Very rarely can you get a 100% conviction. Do you have any numbers from a good source on how many are found innocent that are executed or found innocent while on death row? I would be more than happy to concede my argument with Robtard if it turns out to some absurd number.

Wouldn't/Shouldn't one be enough?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wouldn't/Shouldn't one be enough?

No. For that ONE, the people involved should lose their jobs and be held accountable for a possible manslaughter charge. However, I bet that there is a law protecting those people from such pursuances to some extent.

Indeed, that would apply across the board.

IMO, no person should be executed unless it can be proven at 100%.

However, if this happens as often as BigRed says it does, then maybe executions should be suspended until some sort of state laws are implemented to ensure a much much higher correct conviction rate. Mistakes are still possible, I know but IF the states still want their executions, then they should have extremely strict guidelines to decide that. all of this assumes that we have people dying left and right or people who are on death row, who are innocent

Originally posted by Robtard
Wouldn't/Shouldn't one be enough?

Originally posted by chithappens
If I ever supported the death penalty, I would shoot a guy in the head. Solves all econmic and pain longevity issues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I can follow you with this one.

If they are executed by shooting a bullet right at the base of the skull with the shot fired upwards, it should be an extremely quick death. It MAY be painless. That shot would should sever the spinal cord and if it is shot at a sharp enough angle, it should F up the brain stem. (The brain stem controls things such as breathing, heart beating, etc.)

I don't know much about what happens when the spinal cord is severed in this way...but I can assume that the person probably loses consciousness immediately and not feel a thing. If anyone has info differently, I would love to "hear" it.

Originally posted by BigRed
For the person that said shoot them in the head to say economic and longetivity problems.

That is not feasible. You have to allow the option for appeals and so forth because what if they are innocent?

A shitload of innocent people are either killed or found innocent right before they are killed all the time.

As long as human error exists in something irreversible, you can't possibly morally do it.

This is exactly why people should read in context.

Originally posted by chithappens
This is exactly why people should read in context.

I am not sure I follow what you mean. I thought I pretty much justified your "if" suggestion as feasible. 😕 😕 😕

Originally posted by chithappens
If I ever supported the death penalty, I would shoot a guy in the head. Solves all econmic and pain longevity issues.

But I have debated with people that do think it is a feasible solution to the Death Penalty. So that's for them, just in case. 😮

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am not sure I follow what you mean. I thought I pretty much justified your "if" suggestion as feasible. 😕 😕 😕

You did. I was offering whole context.

Originally posted by BigRed
Fair point. I missed the context of that.

But I have debated with people that do think it is a feasible solution to the Death Penalty. So that's for them, just in case. 😮

On those other points I hardly find fault, but there I still am not solid on how to handle sociopaths and those sorts.

Not sure that killing someone because they're antisocial is right. As far as the true crazies go, who not better to kill then criminals (i.e. murderers) who are beyond redemption because of a mental illness?

Originally posted by BigRed
Why you say that?

I was teasing you about semantics. You contradicted yourself in an unusually stupid way, and it took me several re-reads to decide which point you were trying to support. But to tell the truth, I really don't think your intelligence is lower than mine or most other people.

Still, you should have figured it out by now.

Think really hard about this phrase:

Originally posted by BigRed
Jail isn't really justice or a better solution either, but it is far better than just killing them.

Jail isn't a better solution, but it it far better...

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure that killing someone because they're antisocial is right. As far as the true crazies go, who not better to kill then criminals (i.e. murderers) who are beyond redemption because of a mental illness?

Christians?

Im not really going to get into wether I think the death penalty is wrong but....if the death penalty is supposed to be a deterent it doesnt seem to work. It seems to me that there is something wrong with society in America (not saying that the UK is perfect or anywhere else) and having the death penalty isnt doing anything about crime.

I guess what im trying to say is that the death penalty is supposed to be "justice" but its being used in an injust society. If society was alot fairer and you believed that the people getting killed were really guilty or were really responsible for the way they were then you could argue the death penalty was a good thing. eg you have alot of street kids in Brazil that commit crimes is having a death penalty going to do anything about it, or is sorting out the homeless problem?

Originally posted by Quark_666
I was teasing you about semantics. You contradicted yourself in an unusually stupid way, and it took me several re-reads to decide which point you were trying to support. But to tell the truth, I really don't think your intelligence is lower than mine or most other people.

Still, you should have figured it out by now.

Think really hard about this phrase:

Jail isn't a better solution, but it it far better...

I don't think jail is a better solution for justice. But it is a better alternative than to kill them.

It's hard to wrap my head around that one.

Originally posted by BigRed
Hmmm.

I don't think jail is a better solution for justice. But it is a better alternative than to kill them.

It's hard to wrap my head around that one.

I understand what you are saying.

Jail (or imprisonment) is not better (this is where you had Quark confused...you should have defined your comparative terms or else you end up with an ambiguous comparative statement.) than other solutions of justice, but it is better than the alternative of the death penalty.

I feel about the Death Penalty that a government should just not have the power to take a citizens life. It seems wrong to me, especially in a democratic society where you make the minority that are against killing people collaboraters as well.