The death penalty.
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
My gast has been well and truly flabbered!
What an excellent post by Softus, to the point, eloquent and perfectly timed.
There are times Softy boy when you truly amaze me and I have nothing further to add on this topic as a result.
I hope BAS feels the same.
10/10
MW
What an excellent post by Softus, to the point, eloquent and perfectly timed.
There are times Softy boy when you truly amaze me and I have nothing further to add on this topic as a result.
I hope BAS feels the same.
10/10
MW
Well, Ban, I was going to bother to compose a reply to your latest utterings, but saw that Soft had beaten me to it and said much as I would have - only far more eloquently.
Your attitude is no better than that of a religious fundamentalist, the key emphasis being on the last three syllables. You think you're right, nay from you're point of view you know you're right, so everyone else is morally inferior.
Whatever possible plausibility of your stances there are, have been lessened greatly by your ranting; ranting greatly aided by excess alcohol, it would seem, or it may be that you are just a complete nut, pure and simple.
Your attitude is no better than that of a religious fundamentalist, the key emphasis being on the last three syllables. You think you're right, nay from you're point of view you know you're right, so everyone else is morally inferior.
Whatever possible plausibility of your stances there are, have been lessened greatly by your ranting; ranting greatly aided by excess alcohol, it would seem, or it may be that you are just a complete nut, pure and simple.
Sponsored Links
There's nothing more I can add to express my POV, but I won't be surprised if the morons here decide to have another try at arguing in favour of official killing and violence.
As for what Softus said - I have no idea, I didn't read it. I don't read any of his posts, haven't done for years, I have no interest in anything he writes.
That paragraph sums you up to a tee.
There you go again, as you have done all the way through this thread: you haven't actually brought anything to the table that could possibly suggest to those proponents of capital punishment that there might be another way, have you? You've merely said that you, for whatever reason, are against it and anyone who's not is morally bankrupt, morally inferior to you, loathsome and, now, a moron. Very persuasive comments, it's turned me into a hoody-hugger in an instant.
Today's latest example of the caring, loving country that you say could only be soiled by reintroducing capital punishment. Will the parents of this latest victim be of the mind that it's better for their child to be knifed to death by someone who just might otherwise have been put off by the prospect of being executed, than for the state to carry out death sentences, do you think?
After a trial, the evidence should be looked at by a professional group of experts, if they confirm the verdict it should be straight out the back and strung up.
Alternative is put them in a wooden box and send it through the crematorium, either way they won't re-offend
Alternative is put them in a wooden box and send it through the crematorium, either way they won't re-offend
V
vinty
People who oppose capital punishment are moral snobs, this why the only justification they have for opposing capital punishment is that those who do support it are somehow backward or morally and intellectually inferior.
They can never give a logical reason in defence of their opposition to capital punishment.
They can never give a logical reason in defence of their opposition to capital punishment.
Yes I have - I've said that the other way is for the state not to use killing as a means of control.
What you don't understand is that the proponents aren't interested, and cannot be interested.
Nobody can arrive at a position of support for state-sanctioned killing by reason, and not have had to reason their way out of the problem of wrongful convictions. They will have had to say "I know that my policy will result in innocent people being killed. I know that it is not a case of they might be, or that things could go wrong, I know with absolute certainty that things will go wrong. I know with absolute certainty that people will lie. I know with absolute certainty that there will be innocent people suffering the unspeakably monstrous situation of being deliberately killed by the state when they have done nothing wrong. I know with absolute certainty that we cannot have punishment killings without killing innocent people, it simply is not possible, therefore if I want punishment killings I must want innocent people to be killed".
No matter how much you try to justify it with "of the greater good", or "it's a price worth paying", it comes down to this - "I want a system where the state will deliberately kill innocent people".
And that is utterly appalling. Anyone who has reasoned themselves into that position has abandoned any claim to be decent and moral, and has, in fact, lumped themselves into the same category as the other proponents - those who just want it because they are bloodthirsty and violent thugs.
I am against it because it is WRONG.
I am against it because just like 1:1 violence in the pub it is the last resort of the incompetent and inadequate.
They are.
THEY WANT TO KILL PEOPLE.
THEY WANT TO KILL PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.
If you were open to persuasion, and had any shred of decency, you would never in a million years be in favour of the state killing people in the first place.
We have countless rules, regulations and laws which organise our society in ways where we prevent people from just doing whatever they want.
The parents of this victim may well, in anger and grief, want society to introduce killing people, including innocent ones just like their child, as a means of control. But they may not have it.
Can you explain, without making yourself look stupid, why the evidence that these experts will look at would be different to that presented at the trial?
Can you explain how "evidence" which had been falsified would be labelled by the falsifiers as dodgy?
Can you explain how evidence which had been deliberately suppressed because it didn't fit the verdict decided on by the prosecution side would magically appear?
Can you explain how statements coerced or tortured out of people would suddenly no longer be taken at face value?
And what about the victims of state killing who hadn't offended in the first place?Alternative is put them in a wooden box and send it through the crematorium, either way they won't re-offend
That's because they are.
The only reason you should expect that is because you do not have enough decency or morality to know that killing is wrong.
And nobody who is capable of genuine reason and has moral standards could ever want the killing in the first place.
V
vinty
Wrongful conviction is no excuse to oppose a measure which on balance could save more lives than would be lost through wrongful conviction.
Can the airline companies guarantee that there will never be another plane crash, can the train companies guarantee that a train will never crash, if they can't give such a guarantee why aren't they prevented from operating . This is the point, the anti hanging only oppose it because it offends their sensibilities.
Can the airline companies guarantee that there will never be another plane crash, can the train companies guarantee that a train will never crash, if they can't give such a guarantee why aren't they prevented from operating . This is the point, the anti hanging only oppose it because it offends their sensibilities.
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
