Lets Crucify him!!

pickel · November 4th, 2009, 11:01 PM

Give the bastard to the family members and let them have at it.

Creatures · November 5th, 2009, 02:57 AM

hate filled people here, anger management comes into my mind

the moment you want to do bad things to this man is the moment you become the same as him:
inhuman

Creatures

Shipuuden · November 5th, 2009, 03:06 AM

Let me ask a question. Why do they separate child molesters and rapist from the general population?
Because the Murderers, thieves, gang bangers, druggies, and such at least have some morals (very little) and will kill them... So how about letting the child molester/rapist into the general population, and if you kill one you get time off your sentence...

tony_j15 · November 5th, 2009, 03:18 AM

and we've devolved back to this droll argument again!

Quote:

the moment you want to do bad things to this man is the moment you become the same as him:
inhuman

so if an army attacks your country you shouldn't fight back? Hypothetically they want to do bad things to you, but you wanting to do bad things back makes you inhuman, correct?
If someone tries to rob you at home and you hypothetically have a gun, and hypothetically the robber is blocking the only door, shooting/killing him would be inhuman because that would be doing something bad to him. Am I correct?

(yes, hypotheticals are stupid.

)

MegalosSkylaki · November 5th, 2009, 07:23 AM

No offense, No1_vern,..
You post the weirdest stuff.

Ps I agree with da Pickel

thephilosophizer · November 5th, 2009, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmptr-Gy-Dv

well if your going to use the excuse that some one who is Innocent might be put to death, and you are concerned with the innocent, than you have to take in to account the innocent people that will die if you let the killer live,

No, that doesn't make sense. If they are in prison, without the possibility of parole they aren't going anywhere. Nowhere did I suggest we should just let them go, or anything of the sort. That would be absurd.

thephilosophizer · November 5th, 2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony_j15

so if an army attacks your country you shouldn't fight back? Hypothetically they want to do bad things to you, but you wanting to do bad things back makes you inhuman, correct?
If someone tries to rob you at home and you hypothetically have a gun, and hypothetically the robber is blocking the only door, shooting/killing him would be inhuman because that would be doing something bad to him. Am I correct?

No those aren't valid arguments. Each case presents an issue of defense. Defense is different than retribution. Retribution would have said that after 9/11 we went and blew up some public building in Saudi Arabia. The war in afganistan was not directly for retribution, it was, as argued, intended to eliminate a standing threat against the people of our country.
Further more, not torturing persons convicted of heinous crimes is not letting them off. If properly tried, under appropriate laws (we should be sure that persons convicted of crimes like rape and child molestation, etc should receive the most stringent sentences) these people will be removed from society, and hence no longer pose a threat; and therefore, we would have shot the intruder.

Cmptr-Gy-Dv · November 5th, 2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thephilosophizer

No, that doesn't make sense. If they are in prison, without the possibility of parole they aren't going anywhere. Nowhere did I suggest we should just let them go, or anything of the sort. That would be absurd.

if they are in prison they are still a danger to the other inmates (not that I care)
and the prison staff,

so the chances of them committing murder again are at least equal to the chance of somebody who is innocent being put to death, so the only way to protect the innocent is to put the murderer to death

also by allowing the murderer to live you are telling the victims and there families they have no worth

thephilosophizer · November 5th, 2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmptr-Gy-Dv

if they are in prison they are still a danger to the other inmates (not that I care)
and the prison staff,

so the chances of them committing murder again are at least equal to the chance of somebody who is innocent being put to death, so the only way to protect the innocent is to put the murderer to death.

Again, no. For one, a prison is a secure location, guards have means for protecting themselves, and the prison population. A maximum security prison does what it is supposed to do. And furthermore I am sure you would agree that the murder of a convicted felon in a maximum security prison in no way equates to that of a innocent. If anything this arrangement further devalues the life of said persons, something that you would seem to support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmptr-Gy-Dv

also by allowing the murderer to live you are telling the victims and there families they have no worth

no1_vern · November 5th, 2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MegalosSkylaki

No offense, No1_vern,..
You post the weirdest stuff.

Ps I agree with da Pickel

Thank you Sky.

Please understand, I run across a lot of stuff** in my research or just scanning the news(this issue is from Bloomberg). If I think it might be newsworthy I post it in community. IF I think its controversial - like punishing a child molester in a centuries old banned method, or dressing up children as sluts, I post it here. Because it IS a controversial issue, and I think or even expect people to take sides for/against it, and to tell us their reasons. It isnt just to find out what others think of the issue, but to also show others MY opinions on these issues.

**MOST I dont post here - If I did, I would have been banned long ago. . .