No one here has been making light of it; what they don't accept is that just because you have opposing thoughts in that regard, is you spouting off your particular brand of vitriol. I believe that's called intolerance on your part.
Damn right it is - I cannot tolerate the presence here, or in my life, or in my country of those who want to turn it into one that kills or tortures people.
I don't have the power to remove them from this forum, or to remove them from this country, but I sure as hell am not going to let them think that I tolerate them, and I sure as hell am going to make it crystal clear just how much I hate them, loathe them, despise them etc.
Yes - am intolerant of murdering violent thugs like that, and so should every civilised person be.
It is not a joke to those who are killed or tortured..
Nor should it be, if they've done something to end up in the position of the stat rendering them surplus to requirements.
And what if they've done nothing?
...or who have loved ones killed or tortured.
If they've been tried by due legal process, that's unavoidable fall-out. So we don't do it to avoid hurting the sensibilities of their kith and kin?
And what if they've done nothing wrong? Just how many instances of people being tried "by due legal process" and being wrongly convicted are you prepared to accept as "unavoidable fall-out"?
...and I will not hold back from letting people who want to kill and torture just how repulsive they are.
In your view, I think you meant to add.
Does that make a difference?
So are you going to call him a liar, or am I going to call you one, for one of those must be true:
In these cases those people should be executed for the good of the many and, if they need someone to volunteer to stick the needle in, fit the noose, wield the axe, flick the switch or even foot the leckie bill ... I hereby volunteer.
Yes, to flick the switch, after due legal process. Again, not vigilantism.
Why do you keep mentioning vigilantism? Can you show me where I suggested that he wanted to kill people in a vigilante context?
Every time you get in your car and drive it, there's a chance that you might kill someone. Does that stop you driving?
No, but if you can't see the moral difference between driving and state-sponsored killing as a means of social control then I pity everyone unlucky enough to come into contact with you.
You're not making much sense here. How can the law and the state keep you safer, when it has no real teeth by which to do so?
You're missing the point. You said "There's far more chance of our kids being done in by some knife-wielding maniac than there ever would be of their being put to death by the state under some fit-up by plod", and I agree, and that's as it should be - I
expect the police, and the general machinery of law enforcement to act with more restraint, and more rationality than a knife-wielding maniac.
There should be no chance, none whatsoever, not just an insignificant one, of being put to death by the state under some fit-up.
And there should be no risk to the other 63 million of us when you drive your car, but there is. That's life. Or death.
As I said, if you can't discern the moral difference between a process which is not designed to kill people, and doesn't kill them when it works properly, and one which is designed to kill, and does kill whether it works properly or not....
Vigilantism I do find abhorrent, even with regard to paedos being hounded out, ostensibly because a significant proportion of the self-same people acting as vigilantes are often no better than the people whom they are hounding. But no one here has been talking vigilantism,
You have - you keep mentioning it, presumably in some futile attempt to dismiss my argument by presenting it as an accusation of vigilantism and then showing how nobody is advocating it.
they're talking about the law being changed to reintroduce capital punishment for the worst crimes.
I know that, and that is what I utterly oppose, and that is the opinion which I despise, and they are the people that revolt and disgust me.
I fully accept that there are and always will be diamettrically opposing viewpoints over this; but it doesn't make me, Sooey or Meg morally bankrupt, should we take the view that, in certain circumstances, the death penalty - and even torture for such things as terrorism - are entirely appropriate.
Yes it does.
Yes it does.
YES IT DOES.
It absolutely, unquestionably does.
It demeans and debases any society which uses it.
It destroys any claim of moral superiority or legitimacy that a society has.
It is sickening, and vile, and repulsive. as are all those who are in favour of it.
Am I getting through to you yet?
However much you find what I say offensive, and how ever much you would like to see my voice silenced, I can guarantee you that I find you and your views hugely more offensive.
At the end of the day I just want to make it clear to you how much I loathe you.
You want to kill and torture people - do you think that's not worse?
I can guarantee you something else - in a hypothetical situation where someone in conflict with you could say "I can shout my hatred of you, or I can torture you, or I can kill you - you choose", you'd suddenly realise which is worse.
So don't you dare try and tell me that you are morally my equal, or that your views are just views and have as much validity here as any other, not when your views are that killing and torture are acceptable practices.
