They deserve a........

[Trazor]

Strawman argument. I didn't suggest nor intimate that any murder is acceptable.
I don't consider responding to strawman arguments to be urgent.

Don't be a silly boy Bobby.

My extrapolation of projected murders over 70 years, is taken from a 10 year period shown in this link....https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16638227

Therefore, ensuring that a life sentence, really does mean life, would certainly save many lives.

That, that you do not understand, just ask, and I will clarify.

 

[durhamplumber]

Look at the thread about teachers.
You're getting confused.
Go to bed.

Tiredness is the least of your worries, advocating beating people to death!

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

If we take all your considerations into account, what proportion of those 210 murders would you deem as acceptable?

When you can find out where I suggested any murder is acceptable, I'll debate that point with you:

If you can't find out where I suggested that any murders are deemed acceptable, I'll expect you to humbly apologise.
But I know that'll never happen, you'll revert to another strawman argument or simple abuse.

 

[johnny2007]

Tiredness is the least of your worries, advocating beating people to death!

You're the tired one.
I'm on the ball my friend, on the ball.

 

[Trazor]

I said.

Repeat offenders who murder, would seem to average 3 per year over this 10 year period.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16638227

So over the time line of your suspects, this would equate to roughly 210 murders, from repeat offenders.

Not a fan of capital punishment, but all murderers should face life in jail, with no parole.

You said.............

You don't think that factors such as age, mental health, motivation, previous history, coercion, etc should be considered?

Any factors leading to an early release, however good the intention, will lead to repeat murders, as in the link I provided..

When you can find out where I suggested any murder is acceptable.

You know very well, that I did not say you found it acceptable.

If you can't find out where I suggested that any murders are deemed acceptable, I'll expect you to humbly apologise.

As above, show me where I said you would find it acceptable, and I will Apologise.

you'll revert to simple abuse.

Again, show me any abuse towards you other than a gentle ribbing.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

You know very well, that I did not say you found it acceptable.

Your question, reprinted below was based on a false premise, therefore it was a strawman argument, and it shows you where you implied that I had suggested that any murder is acceptable.

If we take all your considerations into account, what proportion of those 210 murders would you deem as acceptable?

It's like asking if you're still beating your wife.

As above, show me where I said you would find it acceptable, and I will Apologise.

As explained, your question was based on the false basis that I had suggested it.
Here's another example of a question based on a false premise: "Are you still drinking your self into a stupor?"

 

[durhamplumber]

You're the tired one.
I'm on the ball my friend, on the ball.

Calling for Beating people to death...in the 21century?on the ball?...Yeah rite...

 

[Trazor]

And it shows you where you implied that I had suggested that any murder is acceptable.

The simple answer to my question would have been, "I do not think any murder is acceptable".

But you diverted my question , allowing you to slip away from an answer, to the following.....

You don't think that factors such as age, mental health, motivation, previous history, coercion, etc should be considered?

Again, how many murders do you think will occur, if we keep releasing people who murder.

There, I have rephrased to soothe your faux outrage.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The simple answer to my question would have been, "I do not think any murder is acceptable".

So you say. You would say that as a way of denying that you presented a strawman argument.

Again, how many murders do you think will occur, if we keep releasing people who murder.

Why are you so intent on opening such a discussion with me?
Start a thread. Let anyone contribute....if they want.

 

[Trazor]

Why are you so intent on opening such a discussion with me?

Because you replied to my original post, which was aimed at everyone, do you not remember........

 

[durhamplumber]

do not think any murder is acceptable".

Unless a court sanctions death by beating?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Because you replied to my original post, which was aimed at everyone, do you not remember........

Your recollection of events is faulty. Your question was directed at me, and you quoted my post in your response.

 

[Trazor]

Repeat offenders who murder, would seem to average 3 per year over this 10 year period.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16638227

So over the time line of your suspects, this would equate to roughly 210 murders, from repeat offenders.

Not a fan of capital punishment, but all murderers should face life in jail, with no parole.

The above is my original post on this subject, it's the first one you replied to........

Oh hang on a minute, I did quote JohnD in that post, are you getting confused...............

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The above is my original post on this subject, it's the first one you replied to........

Oh hang on a minute, I did quote JohnD in that post, are you getting confused...............

I'm not confused at all.
The post that I included as an image above, is when and where you introduced the strawman argument.
That is the issue under discussion. Anything prior to or since that is irrelevant.

Now let's recall the sequence of events:
You said all murderers should be imprisoned for life, etc.
I asked about any mitigating circumstances being considered, such as age, provocation, etc.

Now at this point, you could have recognised your rather silly earlier assertion, and backtracked with something like: Oh yes, perhaps there might be some mitigating circumstances.

But, instead you introduced a strawman argument to cover your oversight.

Now going back to your rather naive oversight, would you consider that the three sisters who killed their abusive Father, for life imprisonment?
What about the abused wife who killed her overbearing controlling husband? What about the five year old child, playing cops and robbers with his three year old sibling, picked up his father's gun and shot his sibling?

I'm not suggesting that any of these incidents occurred. I'm simply using them as illustrations to show how ridiculous your suggestion was.

 

[johnny2007]

Calling for Beating people to death...in the 21century?on the ball?...Yeah rite...

Again, beating people is wrong and I condemn it.
Beating non-humans that attack an innocent 70 year old is what I would do if communists do-gooders like you didn't exist.
The difference is that what you consider your fellow beloved human being is instead a non-human and as such should be treated.
Again, similarly to when a dog is put down because it's dangerous.
Those that beat old people do not belong to my species (human), they might belong to yours but that's your problem.
Remember: "People", "Non-humans"= two different things.
I hope I don't have to correct you again when you quote my posts.