Freethought & Rationalism Archive

irreversible · 09-27-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael1111

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

I don't care. If it's irrefutable proof of a capital offense, I favor that that person merely be euthanized and let's move on. Tough tooties.

that's fine, but then you're not a humanist...more like...a capitalist

And how exactly is capital punishment related to capitalism?

michael1111 · 09-27-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irreversible

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael1111

that's fine, but then you're not a humanist...more like...a capitalist

And how exactly is capital punishment related to capitalism?

well..it was a play on words and the fact that it puts value on life.

coloradoatheist · 09-28-2007, 02:38 AM

I guess we'll have to start our own philosophy irreversible, because I'm on your side.

Mike

Mat Wilder · 09-28-2007, 07:07 AM

I am wary of the death penalty because it gives the state so much power. As a fallible institution, I'm not sure the state should have the ability to make ultimate judgments. There is no going back once someone has been executed. If it turns out that the prisoner was actually innocent, there is no way to make up for it.

Although when it comes to rapists and child molesters I can only think that they deserve death, probably by slow torture. I might be able to support the death penalty if it was reserved for especially heinous crimes where the evidence was irrefutable (i.e. it could only be used in cases with rock solid DNA evidence). But if there was any doubt, no matter how small and niggling, then the death penalty should not be used.

Headache · 09-28-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irreversible

No. My position on death penalty is practical and, to some extent, emotional. But you opposition to death penalty and life sentences is purely emotional. BTW, if you even oppose life sentences, would let people like Jeffry Dahmer or Charles Manson go free???:huh:

No, it's not emotional at all, it's based on reality.

Dahmer and Manson are clearly mentally ill and would spend the rest of their life in a mental institution getting treatment and medication. Neither one of them should be in normal prisons.

Look to other countries without death penalty or life sentences and then tell me how bad these countries are. At least present some evidence for the usefulness of both death penalty and life sentences and show that removing both has a negative impact on society. Can you do that?

Headache · 09-28-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fanucon

[
i doubt they give the death penalty to first time offenders

See... This is the problem with you killers, you really have no clue what your are talking about.

First time offender with death penalty:

Scott Peterson

zonmoy · 09-30-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by username

Quote:

Originally Posted by irreversible

Most criminal commit crimes with full awareness of their actions. Being born in a 'bad' environment is not an excuse. Basically, you deny personal responsibility and blame someone else for their crimes. That's very typical of liberals.

Open minded people simply do not believe in 'bad seed'. That is to say we do not believe a person is born bad due to natural circumstances such as genetic transfer. People do bad things due to how they have been conditioned. A rapist most certainly does something wrong, but why? Were they born to be a rapist or were they raised (perhaps unintentionally) to be a rapist?

Trying to understand what makes a person a rapist isn't excusing rape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irreversible

Yes, you are mostly soft and bleeding-heart.

One of anti-gun web sites argues that it's wrong to defend yourself against armed robber who breaks into your house because the robber might a poor guy looking for food (huh?). When a person invades my house, I view it as imminent threat to my safety and I don't have time to negotiate peace agreements or figure out whether or not the guy is looking for food. I will kill the bastard right where he stands. (Bah, I must be a right-wing Nazi then!

) So, in this case liberals act like moral cowards who are unwilling to defend themselves, but willing to be compassionate towards criminals.

Well, there are many reasons for a person to commit a crime. One reason is being an asshole and the other is being poor and not having enough to eat.

You have said that you are comfortable shooting a poor person looking for something to eat simply because they are trespassing on what you regard as private property. While I am reluctantly OK with shooting an intruder, I would really hope that the intruder was a bad person and not just someone looking for a meal for themselves or their spouse/kids.

I would like to believe I live in a world where everyone would feel bad about shooting an intruder who was really just someone looking for food.

Unfortunately I am not that naive.

to me if there is a bad seed in people that would be an argument against the death penalty. if there is something genetic in a person that causes them to kill then they do not have the ability to control that factor that controls thier actions.

zonmoy · 09-30-2007, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

Quote:

Originally Posted by irreversible

Well, why should taxpayers pay for their comfortable stay in jail with cable TV and ice-cream for desert? I say, let's rid of them to decrease the surplus of population.

Oh no!!!! Not another clueless person....
"comfortable stay"?? You must somehow mix up Embassy Suites with Smokey Mountain Correctional Facilities. They are not the same.

Maybe you can tell me the name of a single prison where lifers gets ice cream for desert and cable TV? Just a single one... And with supporting evidence, please.

I think you must not have a very good understanding of US prisons, most of them are below what is considered a minimum requirement for a decent human living conditions. Most of the prison should have been closed down due to their inadequacy.

In fact, your whole post shows a total ignorance of the real world.

Death penalty is ALWAYS wrong, just as locking people up for life is ALWAYS wrong. Both are totally inhumane.

I know people will come back with all kinds of emotional crap to try to justify their positions on death penalty and life sentences, but every argument you will use, is emotionally based and not reality based.

I would support locking someone up for life only if that person has some sort of disorder such as psychopathy that is both incurable and makes him too dangerous to ever be released.

JPD · 10-01-2007, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

[
Death penalty is ALWAYS wrong, just as locking people up for life is ALWAYS wrong. Both are totally inhumane.

I know people will come back with all kinds of emotional crap to try to justify their positions on death penalty and life sentences, but every argument you will use, is emotionally based and not reality based.

Yeah, that terrible emotional crap. That crying and sobbing when a loved one has been killed by some piece of garbage. Inhumane? You have no idea. As far as I'm concerned an individual loses their rights to freedom when they intentionally finish the life of another human being.....

...but with a couple of exclusions...
If one is insane then one needs to be treated and kept off the street whilst being treated. If one has been provoked in a savage manner - by the killing of a family member or close friend - then that must be taken into account

fanucon · 10-01-2007, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache

[
Death penalty is ALWAYS wrong, just as locking people up for life is ALWAYS wrong. Both are totally inhumane.

I know people will come back with all kinds of emotional crap to try to justify their positions on death penalty and life sentences, but every argument you will use, is emotionally based and not reality based.

Yeah, that terrible emotional crap. That crying and sobbing when a loved one has been killed by some piece of garbage. Inhumane? You have no idea. As far as I'm concerned an individual loses their rights to freedom when they intentionally finish the life of another human being.....

...but with a couple of exclusions...
If one is insane then one needs to be treated and kept off the street whilst being treated. If one has been provoked in a savage manner - by the killing of a family member or close friend - then that must be taken into account

If your insanity makes you kill ppl you do need to be exterminated

and then you have the group that pleads insanity to get out of prison

if you dont chew off your fingers at night your not insane enough for me to want to save
[/heartlessness]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-28-2007, 02:38 AM	#23
coloradoatheist Contributor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: denver Posts: 11,319	I guess we'll have to start our own philosophy irreversible, because I'm on your side. Mike

09-28-2007, 07:07 AM	#24
Mat Wilder Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Cloud, MN Posts: 836	I am wary of the death penalty because it gives the state so much power. As a fallible institution, I'm not sure the state should have the ability to make ultimate judgments. There is no going back once someone has been executed. If it turns out that the prisoner was actually innocent, there is no way to make up for it. Although when it comes to rapists and child molesters I can only think that they deserve death, probably by slow torture. I might be able to support the death penalty if it was reserved for especially heinous crimes where the evidence was irrefutable (i.e. it could only be used in cases with rock solid DNA evidence). But if there was any doubt, no matter how small and niggling, then the death penalty should not be used.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.