The real monstesrs are the ones posting here with their barbaric support of the death penalty.
![Confused :confused: :confused:](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/confused.gif)
More monstesrs than the child rapist/killer?
![Roll Eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/rolleyes.gif)
Last edited:
The real monstesrs are the ones posting here with their barbaric support of the death penalty.
It is not murder to hang a murderer.
Killing and murdering are not the same thing.
No wonder the justice system is so damn soft and criminals get it easy with some of the HR peeps here.
Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that
Hippy Nonsense
I weep for Western Civilization. It's only a matter of time before we're swallowed up by a stronger culture.
You may not like it, but much of it is in line with our scientific understanding of human behaviour.I weep for Western Civilization. It's only a matter of time before we're swallowed up by a stronger culture.
You may not like it, but much of it is in line with our scientific understanding of human behaviour.
Familiarity with violence increases violent tendencies, beaten children go on to be more violent, the unloved grow up as being bitter twisted & uncaring individuals (all on average, not all cases) - it's simply a matter of cause & effect.
Killing a person as a punishment for killing a person is a simplistic & outdated outlook on crime & justice - well suited to people with poor reasoning skills who see the world as a series of false dichotomies - unable to appreciate the nuanced nature of reality.
Well I'm so glad someone who can appreciate the nuanced nature of reality can weigh in on this one. Tell me, is your aim to create a pacifist society or is there room in your progressive and modern society for self-defence?
If say the Yanks/Russians/Iranians/Martians decided to invade us now, would you resist, or would you roll over and take it? After all, violence engenders violence. Do you really want to be part of the problem and encourage more violence, or would you rather be part of the solution and let them conquer your nation and replace it with a foreign regime?
I'd support a non-aggressive society, which believe it or not does't preclude the option of self-defence when required.Well I'm so glad someone who can appreciate the nuanced nature of reality can weigh in on this one. Tell me, is your aim to create a pacifist society or is there room in your progressive and modern society for self-defence?
If say the Yanks/Russians/Iranians/Martians decided to invade us now, would you resist, or would you roll over and take it? After all, violence engenders violence. Do you really want to be part of the problem and encourage more violence, or would you rather be part of the solution and let them conquer your nation and replace it with a foreign regime?
Could you explain how killing somebody who is already incarcerated counts as self-defence?, as that's all that is required to resist invasion.
That's up for debate, not even Hitler?
In all seriousness, i know what you mean.
It is not murder to hang a murderer.
Killing and murdering are not the same thing.
No wonder the justice system is so damn soft and criminals get it easy with some of the HR peeps here.
Well, that depends on if the person in question supports the political parties which then go on to act in these wars.No, I cannot explain that, because it's not my argument.
Earlier posters were claiming that as a society we'd have blood on our hands if we executed people. My argument is that by that logic, our hands are already drenched in the blood of the innocent because we as a society engage both directly and indirectly in violent acts all the time.
Our parliament represents the will of the people, so we've a responsibility for the actions it takes in our name. WE are responsible for the wars it wages and we're personally responsible for the economic activity we engage in which may create misery and loss of life elsewhere.
If you're willing to take a life to defend yourself, then it's not the taking of a life specifically that you object to, but the reason and manner in which it's done. We can then move the argument forward, because we've already accepted that taking a life is not the problem, but the motives.
Its hilarious seeing people with there kneejerk reactions about killing someone or throwing them off a cliff in response to someone elses murder. That is really not the kind of thinking we want in our society as it only serves to make things worse.