Carry a cap gun and win a trip to jail

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A murderer isn't a victim of society, and by saying that he or she is is tantamount to saying that the murderer is not responsible for taking another life in cold blood.

When you take someone's life in an act of murder, you forfeit your own right to live.<span id='postcolor'>

So it's not ok to murder people in cold blood? How can you then support a society that kills its citizens in cold blood?

What is the next step? Kill the elderly? Execute the handicapped? The poor? Or anybody else that is a burden for the society.

I'm quite unpleasently surprised by this Tex, I thought you were a bit different. Obviously you're just another right-wing hawk having no emphaty for fellow human beings. How sad.

Who are you to decide if somebody should live or die? A society that thinks it is ok to kill those that don't conform to social standards is a barbaric one. Take a look around the world, there are no more civilised countries that support the death penalty.

Sweden is btw currently abolishing 'life in prison' sentence since it is considered barbaric (and 'life in prison' = 25 years max). No European country has the death penalty.

Killing your own citizens because they don't conform to the rules of society is what dictatorships do. How dare you criticize Saddam Hussein and his alikes when you do the same!

On a more pleasent note 'Blanket commutation' empties Illinois death row. Gov. George Ryan has now earned considerable respect in my book.

[FSPilot 0]

For once I agree with denoir. I think the death penalty is a horrible thing, especially for the mentally handicapped. It's like the "you hit me so now i get to hit you" logic from kindergarten. It doesn't help anything, only ends a life. And if that makes the victim's familys feel good, IMO that makes them just as good as the criminal.

The prisons should be a place of rehabilitation, not a cesspool of crime and violence. Sticking criminals with other criminals will do NOTHING to better their situation. If anything it will make them worse.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 11 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 11 2003,21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I would like to add, they are one of us, they are exactly the same, only their life took a different turn. They are not genetically impure or inferior. For instance a homeless person in Canada is still a Canadian, who is homeless, no worse. A serial killer in Canada, is still a canadian, just like Timothy McVeigh and Muhammad are just fellow Americans.

They are not someone else, they are part of our society, a part that needs to be taken care of through taxes. (Ie: not by odd individuals giving change to the homeless, and odd individuals going hunting with weapons for criminals) There has to be a viable system, and it's not that difficult to implement, it just costs a lot and the voice of the poor and criminals is not heard on election day.<span id='postcolor'>

You want to know why the poor little criminal's voice isn't heard on Election day? Because he committed a felony, and isn't allowed to vote any more. Boo-hoo.

And as for capital punishment, I look at it in a different way.

If you kill over 100 people by blowing up a building full of innocent people, or if you participate in the premeditated shootings of over 20 people, then you have forfeited your right to live. You aren't like me. You aren't like my neighbors, or my fellow citizens. You are a fucking murderer, and (though I'm not a religious person) I feel that you should reap what you sow. And I think I am pretty easy-going about it, because I don't require that Timothy McVeigh die by being crushed by several tons of rubble, I just require that he is shuffled loose the mortal coil as painlessly as possible.

I don't fucking care if you had a hard life, or if mommy and daddy didn't hug you enough; my dad didn't even

know his father, and his mother dumped him with her grandparents and took off. Still, he never killed anyone because of it. A murderer isn't a victim of society, and by saying that he or she is is tantamount to saying that the murderer is not responsible for taking another life in cold blood.

I am a strong believer in taking responsibility for my own actions, and expect others to do the same. This is a source of annoyance when seeing news stories like the man who sued McDonald's for making him fat ("I didn't know that fat, deep-fried in fat, could make me fat!"), but it is downright infuriating to listen to a defense attorney blame their client's rape and murder of a 10-year old girl on their client's "rough childhood", instead of the fact that his client is one fucked up individual and deserves to, at the very least, spend life in prison sharing a cell with a guy named 'Bubba' who wants to get to know him better.

And despite all this, you want taxpayers to spend their lawfully attained paycheck on rehabilitating people who don't even deserve to live, much less living off of law-abiding citizens? That is pretty fucked up if you ask me, but then again I don't have a whole lot of pity for murderers. Their is a very simple way that I justify capital punishment; stay with me now, all you secular humanists out there, because this may be a little too simple for you to understand:

When you take someone's life in an act of murder, you forfeit your own right to live.<span id='postcolor'>

And I really disagree with you. Boo hoo, a criminal is still a citizen, and still one of us, exactly like one of us.

I do believe in taking responsibility for my actions, but there is a point when people are just lost in society, for whatever reason.

You are addressing various issues now, </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't fucking care if you had a hard life, or if mommy and daddy didn't hug you enough; my dad didn't even

know his father, and his mother dumped him with her grandparents and took off.<span id='postcolor'> It's really not about me, and I got plenty of hugs.

You are a rude kid arent you.

I won't argue for the American justice system, ie: suing over hot coffe or getting hit by a car after being an idiot crossing etc. I think all that is wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Their is a very simple way that I justify capital punishment; stay with me now, all you secular humanists out there, because this may be a little too simple for you to understand:

When you take someone's life in an act of murder, you forfeit your own right to live.<span id='postcolor'> Stop insulting people finally. And when you take someones life in an act of murder, you either made the mistake because you see no other way (not taught a solution by your family/society) or you are mentally unstable. There is the possibility that you do not think you will be responsible for it, which goes back to the first case, not taught/raised properly. Actually now I see another case, being abused by the person for a long time, that will do it as well.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So it's not ok to murder people in cold blood? How can you then support a society that kills its citizens in cold blood?

What is the next step? Kill the elderly? Execute the handicapped? The poor? Or anybody else that is a burden for the society.

<span id='postcolor'>

I thought I adequately explained this. Everyone has the right to life, but like any other right, you lose yours when you violate someone else's. It's called crime and punishment. You commit the murder, you recognize that you no longer have the right to live. I give the government the power, in part, to protect my Right to life and the Right to life of my loved ones by removing from society those who who have violated that Right As for your second block of text, I honestly cannot believe that you would equate executing murderers with killing the poor and elderly. We don't execute murderers because they are a burden on society. I am actually horrified that you would suggest that just because I feel that people who show no respect for life should be executed in turn, I would also be willing to kill innocent people. We execute murderers because, for a society to be able to function properly, its citizens have to feel secure that their rights, including their right to life, will be protected.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm quite unpleasently surprised by this Tex, I thought you were a bit different. Obviously you're just another right-wing hawk having no emphaty for fellow human beings. How sad.

<span id='postcolor'>

I was expecting something akin to this. Just because I don't show pity to murderers, I am a right-wing hawk. I would have to say that I am equally dissapointed in you, for pigeon-holing me into a group I frequently argue with right here on these forums. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I am neither left-wing or right-wing; I make my own decisions, formulate my own opinions, and as a result I am frequently in the position of defending conservatives to liberals, and liberals to conservatives, while receiving respect from neither group. So be it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who are you to decide if somebody should live or die? A society that thinks it is ok to kill those that don't conform to social standards is a barbaric one. Take a look around the world, there are no more civilised countries that support the death penalty.

<span id='postcolor'>

I don't decide who should live and who should die. The person who makes that decision is the criminal. I'm not the one who pulls the trigger that kills a spouse; I'm not the one who bludgeons the child to death; I'm not the one who kills a cop because he is cutting in on my drug profits. If the criminal doesn't kill the crime victim, they will never face capital punishment. The decision is entirely in their hands.

Life, in itself, has no inherent value. We, in an effort to add value to life, construct a society that values achievements that glorify life and increase its importance. Therefore, your life is only as valuable as you make it. Society artificially enhances that value, by stating that if you don't hurt anyone else, you should be free from hurt. Now, enter the criminal. He has no respect for society, or the value of life, and he kills someone. By doing so, he erases any value his life had, and also forfeits his right to live. There is nothing savage, uncouth, or uncivilised about it. We aren't committing genocide, we aren't killing people as we please. We are executing those who have made a conscious decision to kill a fellow human being, and almost always in a much more dignified and humane than the way the crime victim was killed. You call it uncivilized, I call it justice in one of its purer forms.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sweden is btw currently abolishing 'life in prison' sentence since it is considered barbaric (and 'life in prison' = 25 years max). No European country has the death penalty.

<span id='postcolor'>

Good for Sweden. I hope your pampered criminals are very happy, and now even the lousy ones who always get caught will be able to commit their crime of choice several times in their worthless lives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Killing your own citizens because they don't conform to the rules of society is what dictatorships do. How dare you criticize Saddam Hussein and his alikes when you do the same!

<span id='postcolor'>

You act as if we execute people who criticize George W. Bush. If so, the only thing that would possibly save me from an injection of cyanide would be that I am a minor. In reality, Saddam kills and imprisons those who oppose their government. We give them their own TV shows. We only imprison those who commit crimes, and only execute those who commit the crime of murder (for the reasons I've given above). If that is the earmark of a dictatorship, then the United States is the greatest dictatorship to grace the world's stage. As a matter of fact, I don't especially think we should attack Iraq, but seeing as how it is inevitable and I will have friends who are in harm's way, I'm going to stop bellyaching and support my countrymen, if not necessarily my country's decision.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On a more pleasent note 'Blanket commutation' empties Illinois death row. Gov. George Ryan has now earned considerable respect in my book.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and guess where they are being moved? If you guessed Texas, give yourself a pat on the back. And when(or if- I want to be fair, even though these guys have already forfeited their right to live among law abiding citizens) they get out and commit another murder, they will truly be in a world of shit, because we execute more murderers than any state in the Union, and by proxy, the world. If you have a problem with it, go to this site and E-mail governor Rick Perry and tell him how you feel.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I really disagree with you.     Boo hoo, a criminal is still a citizen, and still one of us, exactly like one of us.

I do believe in taking responsibility for my actions, but there is a point when people are just lost in society, for whatever reason.

<span id='postcolor'>

In America, a criminal who commits a felony and is convicted loses the right to vote. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Yes, he is a citizen, even a human being, just like you and me, in the sense that they are born and/or live in your country, and is biologically a Homo Sapien. In any other sense though, they are not like me, because I don't break the law or kill people, partly because I don't think it's right to kill innocents, and partly because I have respect for my society. I'd think a liberal such as you, with your highly developed moral outlook and respect for government, would see the value of enforcing the laws that keep a society intact.

EDIT: sorry, hit the reply button too soon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's really not about me, and I got plenty of hugs.  

You are a rude kid arent you.

I won't argue for the American justice system, ie: suing over hot coffe or getting hit by a car after being an idiot crossing etc.  I think all that is wrong.

<span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the murderer in question, in an abstract sense. Honestly, stop flattering yourself by thinking that any harsh remark I make is automatically referring to you. Anyways, that other stuff was just details about the responsibility thing; I don't want to get into that stuff right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stop insulting people finally.  And when you take someones life in an act of murder, you either made the mistake because you see no other way (not taught a solution by your family/society) or you are mentally unstable.  There is the possibility that you do not think you will be responsible for it, which goes back to the first case, not taught/raised properly.  Actually now I see another case, being abused by the person for a long time, that will do it as well.

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, so now the term secular humanist is an insult? I thought it was a fairly delicate way of bypassing my feelings about people who are willing to rationalize murder- like you, for instance.

Oh, by the way, there are few things weaker, in my view, than rationalizing the motives of a murderer. Listen to yourself: you are basically saying that "It's okay that you just murdered another human being, I'm sure it wasn't your fault". You obviously do not feel that responsibility is important, no matter what you say, because you are unwilling to just say that when a person does something wrong, they will be held responsible and punished, and if the crime in question is murder, that punishment is going to be harsh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For once I agree with denoir.  I think the death penalty is a horrible thing, especially for the mentally handicapped.  It's like the "you hit me so now i get to hit you" logic from kindergarten.  It doesn't help anything, only ends a life.  And if that makes the victim's familys feel good, IMO that makes them just as good as the criminal.

<span id='postcolor'>

You are correct, mentally ill people should not be executed, and every single time I've seen a state decide to do so, I've gotten angry. Mentally ill people truly do not have control over their actions (unlike a mentally stable murderer, who merely chooses not to exercise that control), and as I've mentioned, the death penalty stems from the criminal's choice to destroy a life. A mentally ill person is not capable of making the choice themselves, and should not be executed, but dealt with in a seperate manner.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Good post Tex.

I could write something just as long and meaningful, but I'm not that articulate.

I agree with you %100 on this issue. But I do think that a life spent in an 8x10 ft cell is much more cruel than lethal injection. But why waste all that money keeping them alive?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,06:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought I adequately explained this. Everyone has the right to life, but like any other right, you lose yours when you violate someone else's. It's called crime and punishment.<span id='postcolor'>

No, it's called revenge. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. A civilized society has a penal code, not 1:1 revenge. If somebody steals from you, you don't have the right to steal from him. That is because we have an absolute moral code of conduct. Killing is bad according to that code of conduct. And it doesn't matter if an indiviudal kills or if the government kills.

In a civilized society you get jail time. In a society that is as barbaric as the individuals it is punishing, you get killed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am actually horrified that you would suggest that just because I feel that people who show no respect for life should be executed in turn, I would also be willing to kill innocent people. We execute murderers because, for a society to be able to function properly, its citizens have to feel secure that their rights, including their right to life, will be protected.

<span id='postcolor'>

Through that you show that you have no respect for life. Criminals are a burden of the society and they are a part of the society. You want to solve your social problems by killing off the ones that don't work within you social model. That is no different then killing off other burdens for the society. Such inhumane thinking deserves only contempt and loathing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was expecting something akin to this. Just because I don't show pity to murderers, I am a right-wing hawk. I would have to say that I am equally dissapointed in you, for pigeon-holing me into a group I frequently argue with right here on these forums. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I am neither left-wing or right-wing; I make my own decisions, formulate my own opinions, and as a result I am frequently in the position of defending conservatives to liberals, and liberals to conservatives, while receiving respect from neither group. So be it.

<span id='postcolor'>

No, but here you show your true nature. This lack of respect for human values, the failure to understand things within a wider social context fits well with the ideology of the far right wing. How clever you are or how intellectual you are means nothing. It is your relation to other human beings that ranks you as a person. The ability to see beyond yourself and the ability for emphaty towards other human beings is what matters. And right now you got a really low score.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Life, in itself, has no inherent value. We, in an effort to add value to life, construct a society that values achievements that glorify life and increase its importance. Therefore, your life is only as valuable as you make it.<span id='postcolor'>

Enter the realm of fascism. As I said to cybrid earlier, a typical fascist ideology is that your human value is related to your social achievement. The poor is less worth then the rich. The healthy is more worth then the sick. I can't begin to descirbe how much it disgustes me to hear that there are actually people today who would support that. I suggest you go to Poland and visit Auschwitz to see what kind of effect that view on human life that you have led to.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam kills and imprisons those who oppose their government.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, criminals by Iraqi law. Besides, you have exected your share of 'traitors' the last 50 years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sweden is btw currently abolishing 'life in prison' sentence since it is considered barbaric (and 'life in prison' = 25 years max). No European country has the death penalty.

<span id='postcolor'>

Good for Sweden. I hope your pampered criminals are very happy, and now even the lousy ones who always get caught will be able to commit their crime of choice several times in their worthless lives.

<span id='postcolor'>

No, because we give them the chance to rehabilitate. Humans are adaptive and can and do change. They get punished, it's not a question of that - they get jail time to see that crime doesn't pay.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 12 2003,07:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with you %100 on this issue. But I do think that a life spent in an 8x10 ft cell is much more cruel than lethal injection. But why waste all that money keeping them alive?  <span id='postcolor'>

The decision between life imprisonment and death penalty, for me, is not so much an issue of which punishment is more effective in letting the murderer know that he's been a bad boy, so much as it is, as you said, a question of cost, and also a question of whether he is willing to commit a similar crime if he gets parole or escapes (which does happen outside of movies). I would prefer to not take that chance.

Incidentally, I am not calling for universal death penalties for anyone convicted of murder. I'm perfectly happy with the system we have where the decision is made on a case by case basis. There is a reason the US Justice System is so obtuse and redundant, it is to make sure that we are making the right decision.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I suggest you go to Poland and visit Auschwitz to see what kind of effect that view on human life that you have led to.<span id='postcolor'>

The Nazi's killed people just because of their beliefs and/or ancestry. In the U.S. People are executed for killing other people. There is a big difference. When a person murders, they forfeit their right to live in society. Wether they are executed or put away for life (not just 25 years), it doesn't matter. It's up to the elected government to decide which.

Denoir, I respect your beliefs, but don't go around calling people brutal and uncivilised just because they beleive in something different than you. I'm getting sick of the 'holier than thou' attitude.

Tyler

EDIT: Just got a thought in my head: What would happen to people like Hitler if they were tried and convicted under the Swedish system? Would he get 25 years with his weekends off?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,12<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are correct, mentally ill people should not be executed, and every single time I've seen a state decide to do so, I've gotten angry. Mentally ill people truly do not have control over their actions (unlike a mentally stable murderer, who merely chooses not to exercise that control), and as I've mentioned, the death penalty stems from the criminal's choice to destroy a life. A mentally ill person is not capable of making the choice themselves, and should not be executed, but dealt with in a seperate manner.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes about the mentally ill, no about the stable murderers.

First off, that's an oxymoron.  Mentally stable murderer.  Someone who deviates from a normal life in society to the point where they kill people is not mentally stable, or someone who has a fit of rage is not mentally stable either.  Ted Bundy, for example was addiction to hard-core pornography, not mentally stable.  IMO, people who criminally murder people are not mentally stable, at least not  when they do it.

They should at least TRY to rehabilitate these people.  It is possible in some cases.  And if it isn't you don't have to kill them, just give them life in prison with psychological therapy.

It would also get rid of all the innocent people being put to death.  Think for a second how horrible it would be to be accused of murder, something you didn't do.  Then to be sentenced to death for it.  Have your family disgraced, have to live the rest of your life in prison.  Then go through the execution.  It's more horrible than I can imagine. And it does happen.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 12 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I suggest you go to Poland and visit Auschwitz to see what kind of effect that view on human life that you have led to.<span id='postcolor'>

The Nazi's killed people just because of their beliefs and/or ancestry. In the U.S. People are executed for killing other people.<span id='postcolor'>

The Nazis killed handicapped people, people of the 'wrong' race, homosexuals,criminals etc. People that didn't fit into their model of the society. The principle behind killing criminals is the same.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a big difference. When a person murders, they forfeit their right to live in society.<span id='postcolor'>

That's your opinion that's not shared by the majority of the western cultural sphere.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I respect your beliefs, but don't go around calling people brutal and uncivilised just because they beleive in something different than you.

<span id='postcolor'>

I call it uncivilised and brutal because it is uncivilised and brutal by our western ethics. It's not a coincidence that every other western country has abolished the death penalty.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm getting sick of the 'holier than thou' attitude.<span id='postcolor'>

Have you ever considered the possibility that there might be other people in the world besides yourself? Having some understanding for other less fortunate people in the world is not 'holier than thou'. It's a basic humanistic point of view.

You say that you respect my beliefs. Unfortunately I can't say the same thing about yours. You support the murdering of human beings. I can't respect that. I loath that and can only wonder where we have erred in our civilization to generate people who think like you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Just got a thought in my head: What would happen to people like Hitler if they were tried and convicted under the Swedish system? Would he get 25 years with his weekends off?

<span id='postcolor'>

No, he would be sent to the Hague by Swedish law. There he would get a life sentence.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, it's called revenge. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. A civilized society has a penal code, not 1:1 revenge. If somebody steals from you, you don't have the right to steal from him. That is because we have an absolute moral code of conduct. Killing is bad according to that code of conduct. And it doesn't matter if an indiviudal kills or if the government kills.

In a civilized society you get jail time. In a society that is as barbaric as the individuals it is punishing, you get killed.

<span id='postcolor'>

It is revenge in a very limited sense that 'this is what the murderer gets for killing a human being', and it isn't, in the sense that if we were actually attempting to take true revenge for the crime, the murderer would scream loud and long during his execution. I have no desire to have the criminal feel any more pain than is necessary to complete the execution process, that's what the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause is all about. So while a small element of revenge enters into it, mostly it is just Crime and Punishment, carried out to the nth degree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Through that you show that you have no respect for life. Criminals are a burden of the society and they are a part of the society. You want to solve your social problems by killing off the ones that don't work within you social model. That is no different then killing off other burdens for the society. Such inhumane thinking deserves only contempt and loathing.

<span id='postcolor'>

Let me make this perfectly clear: capital punishment is only permissible in the case of murder. Unlike you, I feel no need to force policy into a one size fits all shape. It's stupid, and in this case it would be cruel. And yes, it is entirely different than dealing with other burdens on society: to solve the poverty problem, you offer an increased amount of entry-level jobs, cheap housing, and the standard network of social support that civilized countries (including the US) have. I have tremendous vaue for human life, I just don't value the life of someone who willingly killed someone else. If you can't or won't see that I am making this distinction, then we might as well both unplug our modems right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but here you show your true nature. This lack of respect for human values, the failure to understand things within a wider social context fits well with the ideology of the far right wing. How clever you are or how intellectual you are means nothing. It is your relation to other human beings that ranks you as a person. The ability to see beyond yourself and the ability for emphaty towards other human beings is what matters. And right now you got a really low score.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry, but when was the sanctity of human life not a human value? It is for the very reason that I value life (the lives of people who aren't murderers, to be a little more specific), that I support the capital punishment for murderers. As for empathy and seeing the positions of other human beings, I ask myself, "What did it feel like for the murder victim as the bullet/knife/club ended my life? What was he or she thinking in her final moments of life?". I am sorry, but I cannot empathize with a murderer. Oh wait, no, I'm not really that sorry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Enter the realm of fascism. As I said to cybrid earlier, a typical fascist ideology is that your human value is related to your social achievement. The poor is less worth then the rich. The healthy is more worth then the sick. I can't begin to descirbe how much it disgustes me to hear that there are actually people today who would support that. I suggest you go to Poland and visit Auschwitz to see what kind of effect that view on human life that you have led to.

<span id='postcolor'>

It isn't fascism, it's existentialism. I never said that social achievement is the sole indicator of value of life. I am trying to say that when a human is stripped to the most basic, fundamental level, his life means nothing. The value starts being added when the human thinks "I kind of like living, I don't want to die", and matures and develops from there. We create societys that reward creating value in your life; this isn't a fascist institution, it is a hallmark of every human Golden Age in recorded history, from Ancient Greece, when scholars were respected and recorded for posterity, to the Renaissance, when men like Da Vinci gained renown for their contributions to society. Are you saying that the idea of creating value in life is inherently fascist? If you are, then you are at least a mile and a half off-track. Your so-called "fascist" society is what in fact creates the concepts of charity, morality, and empathy. Your "fascist" society is what creates the concept that it is wrong to kill people who don't conform, or people who, at first glance, aren't contributing. Now, if I had said that only people who who actively create value within the framework of a society are the only ones worthy of life, then yes, I would be saying something fascist. But I'm not. I'm saying that every human life has value, which is either self-created or placed there by society, and when a murderer kills one of these valued people, the murderer loses his life's value, and he should be punished in the same way he committed his crime, only more humanely and with more dignity.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, criminals by Iraqi law. Besides, you have exected your share of 'traitors' the last 50 years.

<span id='postcolor'>

So, while arguing that my point is 'wrong' (in the context of right and wrong), you point to the fact that executees in both countries are violators of said country's law, but, you don't allow the fact that executing political dissidents is wrong to enter into my argument. Is this just a tad hypocritical, that you can deal with morality, while I have to operate in a system that form is everything, and morality is nothing? As for traitors, executing them is a historical precedent even older than executing murderers. Still, on a sidenote, I think that executing traitors is an anachronism, and it isn't going to happen very often in the present in civilized countries. For example, Robert Hanssen has been charged with being a mole for Russia in the FBI. He's handed over countless secrets, but I don't think he'll be executed. He'll just be spending a long time in a federal prison. On a sidenote, I recall that you said you wouldn't hesitate to execute a deserter in your unit, am I correct, Denoir? But let me guess, that's different...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes about the mentally ill, no about the stable murderers.

First off, that's an oxymoron.  Mentally stable murderer.  Someone who deviates from a normal life in society to the point where they kill people is not mentally stable, or someone who has a fit of rage is not mentally stable either.  Ted Bundy, for example was addiction to hard-core pornography, not mentally stable.  IMO, people who criminally murder people are not mentally stable, at least not  when they do it.

<span id='postcolor'>

It is not an oxymoron. Many murderers are entirely stable, they just choose to destroy a life in a very rational manner. Those that don't make the decision in a rational manner, in a case where it's a "crime of passion", is up to the court to decide, and often why prosecutors bring both counts of 2nd degree murder and capital murder against a defendant. If the court finds the criminal guilty of 2nd degree murder, an appropriate, non-capital punishment will be meted out. It's due process- it's not like every single person convicted of murder receives a death sentence, and as I've said, I am happy with our current system.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would also get rid of all the innocent people being put to death. Think for a second how horrible it would be to be accused of murder, something you didn't do. Then to be sentenced to death for it. Have your family disgraced, have to live the rest of your life in prison. Then go through the execution. It's more horrible than I can imagine. And it does happen.

<span id='postcolor'>

For someone with such implicit faith in his government's foreign policy, this is an odd area for you to suddenly start doubting the US government's decisionmaking abilities. But it does bring up a good point. Murder trials are agonisingly drawn out, redundant, tedious, thorough affairs for one reason: to make sure that the decision made is the correct one. This, coupled with cutting-edge forensics, and the fact that the decision to convict is first subject to a jury of 12 people, then the sentencing is decided by several hearings, all the while the court's decision is almost constantly appealed, and many times overturned, sometimes on technicalities, other times because we genuinely made a mistake. The redundancies in the system, coupled with the technology and the natural reluctance to send a man to die all form a safety net that catches mistakes, and the catches made thus far are proof positive that the system works.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I call it uncivilised and brutal because it is uncivilised and brutal<span id='postcolor'>

Yes Denoir, I do think that there are other people on the planet, and I accept the fact that they will have different opinions. Just because you beleive in something doesn't make it true. And it doesn't make anyone else who doesn't share your views barbaric and uncivilised.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The principle behind killing criminals is the same.

<span id='postcolor'>

No it isn't. Besides, I said murderers not criminals. People might be born Jewish, but there isn't such a thing as a born murderer.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Having some understanding for other less fortunate people in the world is not 'holier than thou'<span id='postcolor'>

Of course it isn't. But belittling someone who opposes your views is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't respect that. I loath that and can only wonder where we have erred in our civilization to generate people who think like you.<span id='postcolor'>

Ouch, that hurt.

We grew up in entirely different societies, so it's not unnatuaral that we will see things differently. Besides, there are plenty of people who agree with me.

Tyler

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,08<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sorry, but when was the sanctity of human life not a human value? It is for the very reason that I value life (the lives of people who aren't murderers, to be a little more specific), that I support the capital punishment for murderers. As for empathy and seeing the positions of other human beings, I ask myself, "What did it feel like for the murder victim as the bullet/knife/club ended my life? What was he or she thinking in her final moments of life?". I am sorry, but I cannot empathize with a murderer. Oh wait, no, I'm not really that sorry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, criminals by Iraqi law. Besides, you have exected your share of 'traitors' the last 50 years.

<span id='postcolor'>

So, while arguing that my point is 'wrong' (in the context of right and wrong), you point to the fact that executees in both countries are violators of said country's law, but, you don't allow the fact that executing political dissidents is wrong to enter into my argument. Is this just a tad hypocritical, that you can deal with morality, while I have to operate in a system that form is everything, and morality is nothing? As for traitors, executing them is a historical precedent even older than executing murderers. Still, on a sidenote, I think that executing traitors is an anachronism, and it isn't going to happen very often in the present in civilized countries. For example, Robert Hanssen has been charged with being a mole for Russia in the FBI. He's handed over countless secrets, but I don't think he'll be executed. He'll just be spending a long time in a federal prison. On a sidenote, I recall that you said you wouldn't hesitate to execute a deserter in your unit, am I correct, Denoir? But let me guess, that's different...<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, my point exactly. You choose your empathy to people that you can identify yourself with but do not extend it to all humans.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am trying to say that when a human is stripped to the most basic, fundamental level, his life means nothing.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm saying that every human life has value, which is either self-created or placed there by society, and when a murderer kills one of these valued people, the murderer loses his life's value, and he should be punished in the same way he committed his crime, only more humanely and with more dignity.

<span id='postcolor'>

You see the contradictions in your logic:  "I value human life so much that we should kill those that don't".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">value starts being added when the human thinks "I kind of like living, I don't want to die", and matures and develops from there.<span id='postcolor'>

And you think the convicts all go "Yes, please mr. Executioner, kill me right now"?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you saying that the idea of creating value in life is inherently fascist? If you are, then you are at least a mile and a half off-track. Your so-called "fascist" society is what in fact creates the concepts of charity, morality, and empathy. Your "fascist" society is what creates the concept that it is wrong to kill people who don't conform, or people who, at first glance, aren't contributing.<span id='postcolor'>

I am saying that the vaule that an individual gains within a society is not what we call "human value". You have a human value just by being human. No social requirements or limitations on that. A fascist society does not distinguish those two.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, while arguing that my point is 'wrong' (in the context of right and wrong), you point to the fact that executees in both countries are violators of said country's law, but, you don't allow the fact that executing political dissidents is wrong to enter into my argument.<span id='postcolor'>

What I am saying is that killing off people that don't fit into your social model is wrong, regardless of the model. Hussein's model says that political dissidents don't fit. Your's says that murderers don't fit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On a sidenote, I recall that you said you wouldn't hesitate to execute a deserter in your unit, am I correct, Denoir? But let me guess, that's different...

<span id='postcolor'>

No, that is exactly the same. It's barbaric, uncivilised and morally wrong. War is however intrinsically uncivilised and barbaric. If I executed a deserter it would be morally wrong and it would burden my conscience.

Tyler:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I call it uncivilised and brutal because it is uncivilised and brutal<span id='postcolor'>

Yes Denoir, I do think that there are other people on the planet, and I accept the fact that they will have different opinions. Just because you beleive in something doesn't make it true. And it doesn't make anyone else who doesn't share your views barbaric and uncivilised.

<span id='postcolor'>

It's not me, it's all western countries except for the US. Including your country, if I'm not mistaken.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The principle behind killing criminals is the same.

<span id='postcolor'>

No it isn't. Besides, I said murderers not criminals. People might be born Jewish, but there isn't such a thing as a born murderer.

<span id='postcolor'>

The principle is of eliminating elements that you don't think fit in your society or social model. I'm not saying that the Nazi model is the same as yours, but that the methods of removing unwanted elements is the same.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

We grew up in entirely different societies, so it's not unnatuaral that we will see things differently. Besides, there are plenty of people who agree with me.

<span id='postcolor'>

At least in the western world, a minority. As I said, it's not strange that almost every single (well every single except the US) country has abolished the death penalty. Do you really think that would happen without a social consensus?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The principle is of eliminating elements that you don't think fit in your society or social model. I'm not saying that the Nazi model is the same as yours, but that the methods of removing unwanted elements is the same.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes you are right, but you are making that comparison at the most basic level of principle. I guess that's how you compare private ownership of guns for self defence to owning nuclear weapons for the same purpose.

The difference is: The Jewish people never did anything wrong to deserve thier fate. But Murderers do. Since when have murderers ever been an accepted part of any society?

Jeez........

Tyler

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 12 2003,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes you are right<span id='postcolor'>

I'll leave this discussion at that

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"I believe that people would be alive today if there were a death penalty."

-- Nancy Reagan<span id='postcolor'>

[Renagade 0]

First of all what do u mean by murder as there is a diffeerence betweeen someone getting shot in a hold up than some nutjob picking ppl off the streeet then carving them up for fun or what happens if someone ordered a hit on a rival gang member should the hitman get the worse punishment or should it be the person who ordered it ??Murders just too broad a term for a discusssion like this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">  

No, it's called revenge. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. A civilized society has a penal code, not 1:1 revenge. If somebody steals from you, you don't have the right to steal from him. That is because we have an absolute moral code of conduct. Killing is bad according to that code of conduct. And it doesn't matter if an indiviudal kills or if the government kills.

In a civilized society you get jail time. In a society that is as barbaric as the individuals it is punishing, you get killed.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

It is revenge in a very limited sense that 'this is what the murderer gets for killing a human being', and it isn't, in the sense that if we were actually attempting to take true revenge for the crime, the murderer would scream loud and long during his execution. I have no desire to have the criminal feel any more pain than is necessary to complete the execution process, that's what the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause is all about. So while a small element of revenge enters into it, mostly it is just Crime and Punishment, carried out to the nth degree.<span id='postcolor'>

but it is revenge thats why they have those little seats like a theatre at excution places so that those who couldn`t or wouldn`t  have what it takes to exact their own revenge get the government to do it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Nazi's killed people just because of their beliefs and/or ancestry. In the U.S. People are executed for killing other people. There is a big difference. When a person murders, they forfeit their right to live in society. Wether they are executed or put away for life (not just 25 years), it doesn't matter. It's up to the elected government to decide which.<span id='postcolor'>

why does that only apply to ppl who murder??Whats to stop it extending to beliefs??

Quote  

And I really disagree with you.     Boo hoo, a criminal is still a citizen, and still one of us, exactly like one of us.

I do believe in taking responsibility for my actions, but there is a point when people are just lost in society, for whatever reason.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

In America, a criminal who commits a felony and is convicted loses the right to vote. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Yes, he is a citizen, even a human being, just like you and me, in the sense that they are born and/or live in your country, and is biologically a Homo Sapien. In any other sense though, they are not like me, because I don't break the law or kill people, partly because I don't think it's right to kill innocents, and partly because I have respect for my society. I'd think a liberal such as you, with your highly developed moral outlook and respect for government, would see the value of enforcing the laws that keep a society intact.<span id='postcolor'>

Im assuming that the US law system works a bit like over here so say if u shoplifted and gained a criminal record u wouldn`t get to vote from then on or does it expire depending on the crime.

It does seem rather silly  to have it work like that becuase what happens i the reason they got a criminal record was because of the position they were in and the only way to fix that was to vote in someone who could fix what was wrong in the first place but now they can`t cos of the criminal record which only leads them to more crime.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

For once I agree with denoir.  I think the death penalty is a horrible thing, especially for the mentally handicapped.  It's like the "you hit me so now i get to hit you" logic from kindergarten.  It doesn't help anything, only ends a life.  And if that makes the victim's familys feel good, IMO that makes them just as good as the criminal.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

You are correct, mentally ill people should not be executed, and every single time I've seen a state decide to do so, I've gotten angry. Mentally ill people truly do not have control over their actions (unlike a mentally stable murderer, who merely chooses not to exercise that control), and as I've mentioned, the death penalty stems from the criminal's choice to destroy a life. A mentally ill person is not capable of making the choice themselves, and should not be executed, but dealt with in a seperate manner. <span id='postcolor'>

why should someone whos been given the shit health card in life differ than the one who got shit position in life?

Of course u can look at it as a deterrent but in both cases that may not work.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">  

On a sidenote, I recall that you said you wouldn't hesitate to execute a deserter in your unit, am I correct, Denoir? But let me guess, that's different... <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

No, that is exactly the same. It's barbaric, uncivilised and morally wrong. War is however intrinsically uncivilised and barbaric. If I executed a deserter it would be morally wrong and it would burden my conscience.<span id='postcolor'>

Im just wondering if u`ve been conitioned  by the army to think like that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I'm sorry, but when was the sanctity of human life not a human value? It is for the very reason that I value life (the lives of people who aren't murderers, to be a little more specific), that I support the capital punishment for murderers. As for empathy and seeing the positions of other human beings, I ask myself, "What did it feel like for the murder victim as the bullet/knife/club ended my life? What was he or she thinking in her final moments of life?". I am sorry, but I cannot empathize with a murderer. Oh wait, no, I'm not really that sorry.<span id='postcolor'>

probably "damn i wish the UK didn`t have such shitty laws so that i might not be dead or at least criticly injured my attacker killing him or leave enough evidence for the cops to catch him/her" but its the ppl around him that would be affected like when u hear the argument that xx% of suicides were done with a gun its thats persons choice not their freinds or family etc would they rather he/she cut their guts out ?

now my fingers are sore from all the typing

[Renagade 0]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 11 2003,221)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 11 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will only give criminals a monopoly on guns.<span id='postcolor'>

No, the police will have guns. As part of a civilized society we agree on delegating things to others, including the protection on property.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And don't tell me that criminals wont be threatened if they think their victim doesn't have a gun.  Most people in the US don't have guns, and there's still crime.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, there will be crime of course,  but there would be less killings. I have explained already about five times the idea behind it, so I can't be bothered to repeat it again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Lets look at this news article again...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

That article is shite propaganda and I don't give it any credibility.<span id='postcolor'>

Its not so much delegation as being forced and it isn`t just on propety its on our phsyical well being.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And don't tell me that criminals wont be threatened if they think their victim doesn't have a gun.  Most people in the US don't have guns, and there's still crime.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, there will be crime of course,  but there would be less killings. I have explained already about five times the idea behind it, so I can't be bothered to repeat it again.<span id='postcolor'>

I don`t think it just applies to guns but im sure u can  imagine that another possible outcome of that would be more crimes commited because of less resistance unless we lived in a police state which in its self would be open to even greater injustices.

As for ur last point,all pistols were banned 5 years ago.

For the most of it i think its a reasoned opinion.

If u want to see some more propaganda for lack of a better word u could of watched any chat shows around that time or read any newspaper articles involving guns or foxhunting because its very rare that u`ll see a balanced article.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought I adequately explained this. Everyone has the right to life, but like any other right, you lose yours when you violate someone else's.<span id='postcolor'>

You flatter yourself by thinking you or your government is God. is that one simple enough. You are simply lying when you say that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sweden is btw currently abolishing 'life in prison' sentence since it is considered barbaric (and 'life in prison' = 25 years max). No European country has the death penalty.

<span id='postcolor'>

Good for Sweden. I hope your pampered criminals are very happy, and now even the lousy ones who always get caught will be able to commit their crime of choice several times in their worthless lives.

<span id='postcolor'> That's not very likely...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I really disagree with you. Boo hoo, a criminal is still a citizen, and still one of us, exactly like one of us.

I do believe in taking responsibility for my actions, but there is a point when people are just lost in society, for whatever reason.

<span id='postcolor'>

In America, a criminal who commits a felony and is convicted loses the right to vote. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Yes, he is a citizen, even a human being, just like you and me, in the sense that they are born and/or live in your country, and is biologically a Homo Sapien.<span id='postcolor'>

So you think they are in fact less human than us?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's really not about me, and I got plenty of hugs.

You are a rude kid arent you.

I won't argue for the American justice system, ie: suing over hot coffe or getting hit by a car after being an idiot crossing etc. I think all that is wrong.

<span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the murderer in question, in an abstract sense. Honestly, stop flattering yourself by thinking that any harsh remark I make is automatically referring to you.<span id='postcolor'> I know that, but it was part of the game to make you see who can actually become a murderer.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stop insulting people finally. And when you take someones life in an act of murder, you either made the mistake because you see no other way (not taught a solution by your family/society) or you are mentally unstable. There is the possibility that you do not think you will be responsible for it, which goes back to the first case, not taught/raised properly. Actually now I see another case, being abused by the person for a long time, that will do it as well.

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, so now the term secular humanist is an insult?<span id='postcolor'> Putting any label on an individual that is talking to you is an insult. I never accepted any position in a humanist organization or anything like that. I also do not belong to any political party. The actual insult was you entire sentence, where you equated secular humanists to only understand extremely basic concepts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, by the way, there are few things weaker, in my view, than rationalizing the motives of a murderer. Listen to yourself: you are basically saying that "It's okay that you just murdered another human being, I'm sure it wasn't your fault". You obviously do not feel that responsibility is important, no matter what you say, because you are unwilling to just say that when a person does something wrong, they will be held responsible and punished, and if the crime in question is murder, that punishment is going to be harsh.

<span id='postcolor'> No, that is all wrong. It is not okay to murder someone, and you should be accountable to the degree of your responsibility in it. Executions are completely un-civilized, barbaric revenge type decisions. Even apes would not steep to something this low. Are were leveling on the discussion now?

You can still have a functional deterrant against murder without killing the guilty ones.

[DarkLight 0]

Why the fuck are some of my posts gone?

Who the fuck deleted them for no fucking reason?

[Guest]

Nobody has deleted any of your posts. I checked the ikonboard logs and the most recent deleted post was deleted four days ago in "Squads and Fanpages".

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, my point exactly. You choose your empathy to people that you can identify yourself with but do not extend it to all humans.

<span id='postcolor'>

You ignore the reason why I choose not to empathize with murderers. They killed someone, for no other reason than that they were an obstacle, or because their death was the salient goal. This shows blatant disregard for everything society has been working for, in addition to a fundamental inability/unwillingness to live in a society where violence against your fellow human being is not acceptable.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You see the contradictions in your logic:  "I value human life so much that we should kill those that don't".

<span id='postcolor'>

You enjoy oversimplifying things. When the criminal makes the conscious, rational decision to end another human's life, his own life is now forfeit. By demonstrating the willingness to do so, the criminal has shown that he is unwilling to live nonviolently among other human beings. This, coupled with the concept that punishment should fit the crime, leads me to accept the death penalty as a necessary part of our society.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you think the convicts all go "Yes, please mr. Executioner, kill me right now"?

<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe the convict should have thought of that before he chose to murder someone. It's all about choices, Denoir. The murderer chooses to end a life, and by proxy he chooses the death penalty for himself. If I had my way, noone would go around murdering people and noone would be getting executed. Until that day comes though, a murderer deserves no more than what he has chosen to give to his victims, and as a society, we are bound to keep the law-abiding (and even alot of non law-abiding citzens too- murder isn't in the repertoire of some criminals) citzens in society safe.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am saying that the vaule that an individual gains within a society is not what we call "human value". You have a human value just by being human. No social requirements or limitations on that. A fascist society does not distinguish those two.

<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, and we maintain that in every civilized country in the world. But for the purposes of this argument, I have to make the distinction, in order to more clearly explain the concept of value. In practice, all human beings' lives are valuable, and for that reason, the people who choose to kill other human beings deserve to be punished in kind.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I am saying is that killing off people that don't fit into your social model is wrong, regardless of the model. Hussein's model says that political dissidents don't fit. Your's says that murderers don't fit.

<span id='postcolor'>

Suddenly morality means nothing to you, the model is the only thing that matters? How about this: a worldwide society has a rule that states: "you may not kill people solely based on their ethnicity". However, a particular moustached man and his henchmen decide to kill 6 million plus people, because their ethnicity is Jewish. Do we A) Apprehend the moustached man, and spend 25 years trying to calmly explain to him why what he did was wrong, and then release him at 25 regardless of whether he's learned his lesson or not, or do we B) Smash his regime and bring his ass up on war crimes- or in the event that he committed suicide, hold his top subordinates responsible, and then have those convicted hanged? If you chose B, then you know a little about history. Executing murderers is the exact same thing, only on a smaller scale. And besides, it is an almost abusive use of euphemisms to call murdering a person "not conforming to society".

Not to mention, that by your concept of removing people who don't fit the model, prisons are morally equatable with concentration camps. Because it is the same concept: a criminal doesn't fit society's model (which in this case would be "don't steal things"), and is removed from society and placed in prison. By your logic, this is wrong, and we should allow criminals to stay free men despite their crimes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that is exactly the same. It's barbaric, uncivilised and morally wrong. War is however intrinsically uncivilised and barbaric. If I executed a deserter it would be morally wrong and it would burden my conscience.

<span id='postcolor'>

But you would do it, because it is necessary to hold the fabric of the unit together. Executing a murderer is somewhat similar, although it is not morally wrong, because as I've stated so many times, the murderer freely surrendered the right to live when he committed the crime.