Originally posted by RobtardTrue. I guess in the US the people could hypothetically in time change your country to whatever horrorvision they like. Now in German, learning from slight, previous mistakes we actually put in unchangeable laws to protect the individual from the country.
Because their are previous laws set in place by the people.
Originally posted by Robtard
Despite being a parent, I agree that isn't a sound argument. You know what's equally as bad, childless people who think their opinion is somehow unbaised or more valid simple because they don't have children and are someone not burdened by it.
It isn't neccessarily a sound argument, but it might be a sound and justifiable reaction. But as a matter of justice, a reaction and an actual argument are two different things. I wouldn't say I recognize no difference in harming a child v harming an adult, I am simply saying that when it comes time to rectify the situation, level heads should prevail. This is likely why a judge who's child is murdered or raped isn't allowed to be the one sitting in judgment over the accused perpetrator's trial. But it isn't a good thing to rush to judgment, espcially when it involves the life or freedom of another person who may or may not be guillty of the crime. Unless he's OJ Simpson, of course.
Originally posted by Robtard
Despite being a parent, I agree that isn't a sound argument. You know what's equally as bad, childless people who think their opinion is somehow unbaised or more valid simple because they don't have children and are someone not burdened by it.
totally
actually, Bill Maher falls into that line of reasoning sometimes, and it is really ignorant...
Originally posted by Bardock42
True. I guess in the US the people could hypothetically in time change your country to whatever horrorvision they like. Now in German, learning from slight, previous mistakes we actually put in unchangeable laws to protect the individual from the country.
Funny, the US has something similar; it's called The Bill of Rights, aka first ten amendments. Though I must admit, the Bush admin has sodomized it to their pleasing, hopefully it won't be a trend in coming admins.
Originally posted by Robtard
Funny, the US has something similar; it's called The Bill of Rights, aka first ten amendments. Though I must admit, the Bush admin has sodomized it to their pleasing, hopefully it won't be a trend in coming admins.
Are the Bill Of Rights beyond touch of a sufficient majority? Also, if you know that, you already know that it is not solely up to the people. Why did you ask me in the first place?
Originally posted by Devil King
It isn't neccessarily a sound argument, but it might be a sound and justifiable reaction. But as a matter of justice, a reaction and an actual argument are two different things. I wouldn't say I recognize no difference in harming a child v harming an adult, I am simply saying that when it comes time to rectify the situation, level heads should prevail. This is likely why a judge who's child is murdered or raped isn't allowed to be the one sitting in judgment over the accused perpetrator's trial. But it isn't a good thing to rush to judgment, espcially when it involves the life or freedom of another person who may or may not be guillty of the crime. Unless he's OJ Simpson, of course.
Well yes, level heads should always be the voice of reason.
Originally posted by RobtardNo one thinks that.
I remembered now. State laws are voted in by the people, therefore the death penalty in Lousiana is the will of the people and not just a few irrational parents who think child-rapers whould be killed.
It's the will of a lot of irrational parents who think child rapers should be killed.
Originally posted by Robtard
I remembered now. State laws are voted in by the people, therefore the death penalty in Lousiana is the will of the people and not just a few irrational parents who think child-rapers whould be killed.
Bingo.
This was what I trying to convey. The Justice System is a system of morals.
Originally posted by RobtardIt could also be that they are a majority.
Are you suggesting that "irrational parents" are either the only ones who vote or someone pulled a voting-scam?
But no, I was just making a joke. I said before I don't think it irrational parents vs. rational non-parents. To me it is just irrational people vs. rational people, which is usually the case, and sadly not surprising that the irrationals are a majority.
Well, Louisiana is desimated from Katrina and I would be willing to bet that the extreme measures being taken are mostly derived from not having very good law inforcement. Not that it was very good in particular before Katrina but post Katrina is still very much apocalyptic. Having grown up in Gretna, Louisiana and having seen it for myself after Katrina I feel safe in making that judgement for everyone to see it in all of it's glory.
Katrina (I said it one more time for infasis) blowup
Originally posted by Bardock42
It could also be that they are a majority.But no, I was just making a joke. I said before I don't think it irrational parents vs. rational non-parents. To me it is just irrational people vs. rational people, which is usually the case, and sadly not surprising that the irrationals are a majority.
I can agree with that.