Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL No believe me we have argued this to death already.
lol, you have a reputation of just telling people "read the thread" when you are asked things. You had never done that to me, but it was funny when it happened. My suggestion would be to just quote yourself, it makes the other person look like a tool also 🙂
anyways, let me pose this: If the state kills a murderer, then since the state represents the people, we have all just killed that person. You believe that this is morally ok, I believe that this is morally wrong. At the very least we have an unsolvable moral problem, since neither of our beliefs on the MORALS of capital punishment are based on facts, instead on our feelings.
Why should your moral idea be law?
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, you have a reputation of just telling people "read the thread" when you are asked things. You had never done that to me, but it was funny when it happened. My suggestion would be to just quote yourself, it makes the other person look like a tool also 🙂anyways, let me pose this: If the state kills a murderer, then since the state represents the people, we have all just killed that person. You believe that this is morally ok, I believe that this is morally wrong. At the very least we have an unsolvable moral problem, since neither of our beliefs on the MORALS of capital punishment are based on facts, instead on our feelings.
Why should your moral idea be law?
Its not simply a moral idea, Murder and state sanctioned execution are not the same thing to me. Do you consider a soldier killing someone in a war to be immoral?
Originally posted by StarhawkExcept have anything to back up your statements or view except "I'm a Law Student" and "I will make it happen". If it gets changed I can guarantee that it wasn't because of you.
LOL Well we have argued this every which way possible I think. Pretty much anything we say now will simply be rehashing old issues now.
Originally posted by StarhawkYou can't even get this? What have I've been talking to you over the last posts? You have many of your fellow country men for the past 20 years or so trying to repeal the ban and they have many years more experience and knowledge of the law than you or your fellow law students and by saying that you and your "followers" will get it reversed because you are "determined" means that they were not. Even public opinion at that time was in favor of repealing the ban and still didn't work. Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean that it will happen without out a plan and you have none or even a clue of one.
I don't get what you mean? I was talking about my determination and that of my fellow students that agree with me.LOL I really don't see why this is still going on, neither side is going to change their mind and yours are not the minds I have to change anyways. And trust me, making the right political friends can get your issue moved to the front of the line very easily too.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Except have anything to back up your statements or view except "I'm a Law Student" and "I will make it happen". If it gets changed I can guarantee that it wasn't because of you.You can't even get this? What have I've been talking to you over the last posts? You have many of your fellow country men for the past 20 years or so trying to repeal the ban and they have many years more experience and knowledge of the law than you or your fellow law students and by saying that you and your "followers" will get it reversed because you are "determined" means that they were not. Even public opinion at that time was in favor of repealing the ban and still didn't work. Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean that it will happen without out a plan and you have none or even a clue of one.
LOL Then I guess you have nothing to worry about then? I'm not worried, and it's not all about public opinion and legality, it's also about having the right political connections.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so if it is not a moral issue, what factual line of reasoning do you employ to justify reinstating the death penalty?
Does not have one. According to him, only those who are qualified (educated in law) should deal with law and politics and all others are ignorant and informed; therefore, they are should be cut off from all matters concerning making or modifying laws.
That is a paraphrase since he does not want to quote himself. He has not adequately addressed the subject so if you read the entire topic, you would just end up pissed anyway.
Originally posted by chithappens
Does not have one. According to him, only those who are qualified (educated in law) should deal with law and politics and all others are ignorant and informed; therefore, they are should be cut off from all matters concerning making or modifying laws.That is a paraphrase since he does not want to quote himself. He has not adequately addressed the subject so if you read the entire topic, you would just end up pissed anyway.
Has he really been that elitist?
Originally posted by chithappens
Does not have one. According to him, only those who are qualified (educated in law) should deal with law and politics and all others are ignorant and informed; therefore, they are should be cut off from all matters concerning making or modifying laws.That is a paraphrase since he does not want to quote himself. He has not adequately addressed the subject so if you read the entire topic, you would just end up pissed anyway.
If your going to speak for me do it only by quoting me to make sure you get it right. The average person is involved in that they vote in the politicians who make and adjust the laws. But that is where their involvement ends.
Originally posted by StarhawkI never said that it was, however public opinion has a major influence on law and its law makers. Political connections are one thing, they way you word it sounds more like bribery but you keep overlooking the fact that your fellow country men before you also had connections and that is how they got it to the House of Commons for the vote. Therefore you will have to have something new and different to bring to them because they have already ruled on it so you will need a new approach unless Canadian law in this matter is different.
LOL Then I guess you have nothing to worry about then? I'm not worried, and it's not all about public opinion and legality, it's also about having the right political connections.
As I've said before I'm not worried about this, I'm worried about you becoming a lawyer and having some poor sole intrusting his/her freedom to your very flawed and poor debating skills. 😉
Originally posted by inimalist
Has he really been that elitist?
Skim the last three pages. It's in response to what I was saying about educating those who do not know how legal proceedings are handled. I do not know how to quote properly. I'll try but it'll be a trial and error thing. Give me a few minutes
Originally posted by Starhawk
Just read over it. I'm sorry to do this to you cause your one of the few I respect but, I have gotten the same points brought up again and again.
dude, its 68 pages of majority spam. Thank you for the respect, I am trying to get to the origins of your opinions here
Can you at least say positively that you have a single study or article that implies a positive case for capital punishment
honestly, a name, a philosophy, a ruling, a title of a book, a case. Something I can look up for myself. I just have no clue where you are coming from