Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Allowing people to kill themselves does not= a great idea.It irks me how so any people look down on people with drug problems.
Ahhhhh, so you subscribe to forcing your moral beliefs on another people that don't affect you, huh?
Of course, there should always be laws in place such as public "intoxication" or driving while under the influence because that affects you and me. However, doing at home behind closed doors is just fine.
Peoole should have the freedom to do what ever they want to their bodies or do things that don't affect others. If two people want to commit suicide in their own home or in a private location, great. Let them do it.
You can't force people to do to their bodies as you'd want them. (Which is why I think abortion should be legal.)
You cannot and should not force your moral beliefs on others when the "behavior" or "act" does not affect you.
Again you SHOULD have laws in place about doing things in public.
Please see Holland for details. doped
Originally posted by King Kandy
3. Replace most life sentences with death sentences (there are a few exceptions in my head but I'm not going to spend the time writing them out.)
This doesn't make sense to me. There are always stories in the news about convicted inmates on Death Row being acquitted. America has more people in jail than any other country- many of them are innocent.
Death is immutable, unchangeable. If there was a mistake, we can never go back and change our mind.
On top of that, carrying out a death penalty is far more expensive than a life sentence. The appeals process drags on and on, and it can cost millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of dollars just to get to the execution table/chair in the first place.
Life sentences are not only cheaper and less absolute, they are more punishing too. If you kill someone, they suffer for the time leading up to the event and whatever pain there is during their death. In a life sentence the person has a lifetime to live with themselves and society's scorn, not to mention their lack of freedoms/privileges.
...
I just can't see any justification for a near universal death penalty.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
On top of that, carrying out a death penalty is far more expensive than a life sentence.
I thought we debunked that myth already? I thought it depended on the length of prison term? There's a threshold...I don't remember. I think it was like 15 or 20 years and then it becomes more expensive to house the inmate instead of execute after like 7-12 years.
If the execution process was stream lined, it would cost waaaaaaaaay less to execute. Too much red tape.
Originally posted by dadudemonIf the process was stream lined though more innocents woul be killed.
I thought we debunked that myth already? I thought it depended on the length of prison term? There's a threshold...I don't remember. I think it was like 15 or 20 years and then it becomes more expensive to house the inmate instead of execute after like 7-12 years.If the execution process was stream lined, it would cost waaaaaaaaay less to execute. Too much red tape.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If the process was stream lined though more innocents woul be killed.
Good riddance. 😠
Really, though, we had this discussion already. I said that we should only execute the truly guilty who don't rehab or show remorse. That should narrow it down.
I like the idea of killing people, though. I'm not the best of judges on that.
Originally posted by dadudemonWell, of course you'd want to get the "truly guilty" but how to find out.
Good riddance. 😠Really, though, we had this discussion already. I said that we should only execute the truly guilty who don't rehab or show remorse. That should narrow it down.
I like the idea of killing people, though. I'm not the best of judges on that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Really, though, we had this discussion already. I said that we should only execute the truly guilty who don't rehab or show remorse. That should narrow it down.
Which is stupid. The innocent don't show remorse because they've been wrongly convicted. The guilty will show it to escape execution.
Did I mention that was a stupid basis for executing people?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ahhhhh, so you subscribe to forcing your moral beliefs on another people that don't affect you, huh?
Of course, there should always be laws in place such as public "intoxication" or driving while under the influence because that affects you and me. However, doing at home behind closed doors is just fine.Peoole should have the freedom to do what ever they want to their bodies or do things that don't affect others. If two people want to commit suicide in their own home or in a private location, great. Let them do it.
You can't force people to do to their bodies as you'd want them. (Which is why I think abortion should be legal.)
You cannot and should not force your moral beliefs on others when the "behavior" or "act" does not affect you.
Again you SHOULD have laws in place about doing things in public.
Please see Holland for details. doped
You're speaking from ignorance, so I'll let this pass.
Originally posted by Red NemesisWow. Who would've thought I'd be able to find something to agree with you on? 😐
The only problem I see is that some drugs are extremely addictive- maybe there should be *some* aid service...
Maybe this was a bit harsh, maybe put a bit of a leash on gay people so that they couldn't work in schools or nurseries or churches for obvious reasons.
Damn. You almost made it through without saying something dumb. As it stands, people are forbidden to refuse employment based on a genetic circumstance- some people would call it racism. Being black is no less a genetic state than is being gay. So refusing a gay individual employment because they are gay would have to be frowned upon just like refusing a black guy employment because he is black.
no. People step on my rights though when they call me intolerant for not accepting something twisted and perverted, such as homosexuality. (black people are coo' man, i just don't like it when they constantly play the race card)
The first phrase made me cringe a bit. Do you feel like you are being 'forced' to accept black people, too?
Excuse me i meant gay or pedophile. But it still stands, after forcing people to hire gay people everywhere, the next step is to force them to hire pedophiles. After all, the pedophile didn't chose to be that way any more than the homosexual did.
EDIT: Lulz @ 'gay pedophile.' I almost missed your attempt to link the two words together.
First of all, i am against muslims. anyone who says I should tolerate muslims hates america, as shown in this extract from wikipedia:That sounds great. Can I ask your position on Afghanistan?
Also in 1998 came the World Islamic Front declaration of 23 February 1998, entitled "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders", which described the actions of Americans as conflicting with "Allah's order", and stated the Front's "ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."Muslims consider us crusaders and want to kill americans wherever and whenever they can, and have so since far before 9/11.
Afghanistan was necessary, in order to show that we are a force to be reckoned with and not to be attacked with no consequences. As for Iraq, the whole guise was that there were "weapons of mass destruction". where they are, we don't know. if they ever existed, we don't know. But as soon as we had sadaam we should have been out of there.
this is really part of my "abolish the war on terrorism" as it gives an alternative to being in iraq for 20+ more years.
This is really a fourth act, but whatever. It isn't like the OP can do anything to you.
of course, there would be alot of training involved with giving teachers and pilots weapons to defend their classrooms and vehicles. Handling, safety, and basic tactics would all be apart of this training program. I think we all agree, however, that columbine would not have happened, had the teachers had guns, and that 9/11 would have been circumvented, had the pilots been armed.
As president you would at least agree that there would be a strenuous training program? Flooding the public theater with weapons will only increase the danger of collateral damage. We clearly stand on opposite sides of the Gun Control issue, and I don't really want to get into it, but I would hope that you recognize the danger in an untrained individual trying to be a hero. [/B]