I wouldn't roll your eyes if I were you Lord K - this thread is about a man being executed and lots of people disagree with that. If you didn't want a discussion of whether its right or wrong then I have to wonder why you posted it here. Do you want us to make a seperate thread to say what we want in and to leave this one to you and Khazadman? That might smack just a little of pettiness. But hey, thats just my opinion. I don't agree with Yorick on much, but I agree with him on this. He's not being insulting, and if you don't like what he says then you can always post your reasons why.

<font color=lime>I can roll my eyes if I want to! ;) j/k :D
I understand what your saying Bruce. I really dont care if it does become a debate. Heck, maybe I wanted one myself...well, not really, but go for it. Sorry for the jab Yorick... [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Errr... I'm Barry. I can understand why you thought I was Bruce though. We have the same middle name. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway, I didn't want to come across as angry really, just saying that it seemed a little harsh to criticise Yorick for talking about the death penalty in a thread about the death penalty. To be honest, I'd have thought it was a pretty natural occurence.

LOL. Smartarse. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Thanks for the early a.m. laugh. :D

[ 11-25-2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

"No death penalty, no abortion, no euthenasia, no murder, no war. No humans ending human life."


A perfect little theory for a world full of thoughtfull and selfless people....if only we lived in one.


Not to oversimplify your point, but you do realize people die, right? That doesn't mean I have the right to go kill my neighbor for throwing cigarettes on my lawn (hey he's gonna die anyways right?) I just mean that while death shouldn't be taken lightly, we must also realize that it is a part of life and, in and of itself, is not taboo.

But then, thats more of an emotional argument....Timber has one of the absolute best arguments I ahve ever heard about the Death Penatly...he summed it up in this post, but his original is well worth a good read also.

Well...I've been trying to bite my tongue so we don't get off topic here...but I do have a few things I'd like to say (as well here others opinions about) regarding Yoricks context behing the following statement:

"No death penalty, no abortion, no euthenasia, no murder, no war. No humans ending human life"

NO Death Penatlty--already well covered..I'm going to leave it be

No Abortion--Way to heavy an issue about something no religious person and I will EVER come to agreement on due to differing fundamentals (i don't believe nuclei have souls)...so I'm going to leave it be also.

No Euthenasia--Simply put, but what right does anybody have to tell me I'm not allowed to die?! It's my life, my body, and if I choose to die it is my choice. More to the point, what of the cancer patient, in excruciating pain day after day who lives each moment of life like they are in hell? By what right does anybody have to tell this person they must continue suffering? If there is a logical reason for death--and I think there are a few--one of those reason must be the cesation of pain.

I doubt many religious people will agree with me on this...and in return all I do is reccomend they go visit terminal ward at a hospital. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" right? Well, I take this to mean many things, one of which is to not tell others to put up with suffering that they themselves have not experienced and cannot comprehend.

No Murder---well, i think we can agree on this one, but only within an evil context. But what of the father who kills a man attempting to rape his daughter? Is this murder? If so, was it wrong?

No War---Once again...and easy thing to say and agree too, but what of the realities of life? Should we have let the Nazi's run Rampant over Europe during WWII and declared "we don't believe in war so we're not going to fight"? Heres one with a larger grey area...you and your're tribe are starving to death and lack any shelter...across the plains lie another tribe that has enough food to feed them for next 30 years, and they have shelters aplenty...more caves than they need.

Your tribe is willing to share and live peacefully with the other tribe, but they will not share their food or land with you, and force you off should you intrude on their territory. Do you have the 'right' to take the food and shelter by force? If not the 'right' are you at least morally forgiven by whatever higher power is out there?

The reasons one commits murder may be different, but fundamentally the act of taking another’s life against their will is murder. (This is obviously how I define murder. This point could be argued extensively as murder does have multiple definitions. For instance, the act of taking a life unlawfully or putting an end to a life can also be construed as murder. Just thought I would clarify my definition before I stick my foot-in-mouth.)

I do not feel that murder is wrong though. It is just another act of nature running its course. While it is idealistically a good idea to remove all murderous intent from the world, realistically it would never happen, nor should it happen. Natural selection is part of life, and there will always be those who will choose to exert their opinions on the world forcefully. It is in our nature.

Problems would also arise when groups started an attempt to identify life. Look at abortion. Many believe a fetus is just a clump of cells that are not alive. Others believe the life to exist starting at conception. Where would we draw the line? At what point does it again become a debate of my rights vs. your rights? I cannot see society as a whole coming to any sort of agreement.

Nice post, but I'd like to comment on this. The fetus is a life, a human, at conception under the law. If you don't believe me, watch the news for the next guy who kills a pregnant woman and gets a double homicide conviction. The abortion rule does not say the child is not a life. What it actually says is that when the child is a fetus, its right to live is outweighed by its mother's right to liberty and choice. There's one victory you can stick in your libertarian pipe and smoke, huh? ;)

Nice post, but I'd like to comment on this. The fetus is a life, a human, at conception under the law. If you don't believe me, watch the news for the next guy who kills a pregnant woman and gets a double homicide conviction. The abortion rule does not say the child is not a life. What it actually says is that when the child is a fetus, its right to live is outweighed by its mother's right to liberty and choice. There's one victory you can stick in your libertarian pipe and smoke, huh? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]But, there is still a common disagreement as to whether or not the fetus is alive. I understand that in the eyes of the law the fetus is a living human, but not everyone agrees with this assessment.

It should be stated that my opinionated views take place outside the law. Laws are nothing more than the accumulated opinions of various people, used to set a standard by which we live. As such, I do not use any laws as a basis for any of my opinions, though I may have an opinion pertaining to a law.

It may be a fact that a law exists, but that doesn’t mean the law holds any merit when composing an opinion unless you believe in the law.

<font color=lime>Uh, oops. Not sure why I thought you we're Bruce. It was late, must have been tired... :rolleyes: Sorry. :D </font>