Soldato
Whatever happened to the gas chamber?
It went out of fashion with pig iron chastity belts and racks.
Whatever happened to the gas chamber?
Didn't you know, unless you bay for blood like a neanderthal you are a softie, lefty, do-gooder, liberal, socialist, communist, hippy.How have I moved the goalposts? You said that killing and murder were different. They are, but not in the respect that matters; they both involve the death of a third party.
Why is it do-gooder? You'll be calling me a leftie next.
I think the problem is, it involves significantly more effort & time to educate yourself on the myriad of different causal factors which lead up-to crime than it is to have a view which is "kill da crimz for being evilz!".I think it is quite sad that people are so ready to completely ignore these circumstances and call for blood. I think there was a post earlier in this thread that demonstrates it, and certainly a great many in the reddit threads I've read about this same incident.
Well, that depends on if the person in question supports the political parties which then go on to act in these wars.
I don't personally so I have no blood on my hands, there is also a pretty key difference between actively supporting activities & policies which in turn result in the deaths of others (like war, or the death penalty) to actively campaigning & supporting political parties which will not indulge in the same activities.
You are also presenting a red herring, if not enough can be said in defence of the death penalty in isolation, if it can't be defended on it's own merits then it should not be supported - if our society supports or doesn't support wars is immaterial to this debate.
This seems pretty applicable here: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...-the-people-we-put-on-death-row-are-innocent/
No, it doesn't. You live in a society which is reaping the economic benefits of these conflicts, making you complicit in them. Anything less than active protest is complicity.
No it's not, because your side of the argument reduced the debate to 'killing is wrong'. Evidently killing is NOT wrong in some circumstances as some posters seem to accept you can kill in self-defence.
If killing is acceptable in some circumstances, then their claim that 'killing is wrong' is clearly false, and the ball is back in their court to explain why killing those who commit the most horrific crimes is wrong.
In the cold light of day, killing is ALWAYS wrong unless nothing can be done to avoid it. Capital punishment is, quite obviously, avoidable.
So if someone were brutally raping and torturing your partner, would you use deadly force to protect them? You cannot be sure that your partner would die, so your using deadly force would surely be the bigger crime?
Are you a Christian by any chance? I cannot fathom why a non-religious person would hold such a position.
Why are you attempting to compare execution with self-defence or the defence of others?.So if someone were brutally raping and torturing your partner, would you use deadly force to protect them? You cannot be sure that your partner would die, so your using deadly force would surely be the bigger crime?
Are you a Christian by any chance? I cannot fathom why a non-religious person would hold such a position.
Indeed, why is that so hard for some people to comprehend.(it's not that I wouldn't WANT to kill such a person in that circumstance - I'm sure I would, and it would be understandable -but it would still be wrong)
So if someone were brutally raping and torturing your partner, would you use deadly force to protect them? You cannot be sure that your partner would die, so your using deadly force would surely be the bigger crime?
Are you a Christian by any chance? I cannot fathom why a non-religious person would hold such a position.
In such an example, the force used would reflect that the act would simply HAVE to be stopped. It wouldn't be the aim to use deadly force (the aim simply to prevent the event), and if killing was a by-product, then so be it. It doesn't make it right to actively aim to kill someone even in that extreme circumstance.
In the cold light of day, killing that person deliberately would have been the wrong choice if it were avoidable.
I am not religious.
Force used in that respect is for the greater good and even then the force used should be viewed as proportional to the situation. If a life is taken in the above situation it can be viewed in two respects only, accident in the heat of the moment or excessive force after the the assailant has been subdued. In either respect it is not an execution, one is an accident and the other maybe called murder dependent on the context.
I think anyone would use the force they needed to stop and subdue the assailant, there would be no time to clearly think of any objective including weather you were going to use deadly force.
Why would it be wrong? He's doing serious harm to your partner and there is no guarantee that anything short of death would stop him. Why would it be wrong to take his life and ensure the security of you and your partner?
In the cold light of day, killing is ALWAYS wrong unless nothing can be done to avoid it. Capital punishment is, quite obviously, avoidable.
I am exploring the idea that killing is wrong in all circumstances. If a person truly believes this, then further debate seems pointless. If however they concede there are circumstances where killing is acceptable, then we can return to where we were a few pages back, before people were flatly claiming killing is wrong in all circumstances: we'd have established it wasn't and could then explore the merits of execution.
You even contradict yourself above, and move goalposts proving killing is not the same as murder.
If a burglar enter a home and the owner kills him he is not a murderer.
You do not rehabilitate a child rapist/murdered.
Oh and you are an authority on what goes on in USA or not?
....
and the same thing happens in the uk, they get put up in whats the same as a B&B with a PS4 , tvs and plenty of sport related things to do. oh and then hell be given a house in 10 years when he gets out.