Views on death penalty

[Gab]

This reminds me of a debate about gun control I had with Oblivion almost a month ago. It's a good thing that I have people like you Sparhawk who agree with me [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[ 04-05-2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Yorick: Oblivion, have you heard of Occams Razor? Look it up.

Yes, I've heard of it, but it's applied relevance here is tangential at best...

If you are going to sit there and hypothesise nonsense about my country - which has no death penalty, no revolutionary war, no civil war, no slavery, no Ku Kluxx Klan and no paranoid delusions of the scope found in the USA - it would really seem your perception of the world is in serious error.

The Ku Klux Klan has ALWAYS been a fringe group in American society, from its founding and subsequent mutation into a terrorist group in the 1860's... What I was showing was, from my understanding of a judicial system, Bryant didn't have to testify himself, his person didn't, in all practicality, have to be at said trial. The Revolutionary war was a necessary assertion of our rights. The British government refused to actually negotiate with us, so we decided to cut the cord and carve our own path in life. The Civil War was fought over a lot more than slavery and mere sectional politics. Read up on it a bit more. What's more, you apparently have been plugged into the minds of EVERY Australian and American citizen, and happen to know EVERYTHING as well, as you are in fact in a foolproof position to judge how Americans think, everywhere. Maybe you got your opinion of the American mind set (there is no one 'American' mindset) by watching Bowling For Columbine and CNN. It's understandable, between those two, serious misleadings have been projected about most Americans. Most people aren't scared shitless, clutching firearms late into the night for fear of random bands of brigands coming in the house to do what brigands do. Everywhere I go where someone has a few comments to lay on such media, it's always how things are just the opposite. I'd say most Americans are too secure in this seat of global power we've carved out for ourselves...

Go and visit Tasmania at least. Get a feel for the spirit of Australia. We don't have Oaklahoma bombings or Presidents/Prime Ministers getting assassinated. Get a feel for the word "mateship" and "egalitarianism" and see how it works in Australia, before applying your sheltered experience of life in a small corner of American TV reality onto the culture of a country on the other side of the planet. See ya.

So you're saying that ideas of national and social comradery, ideas of equality among men, these ideas, they're alien to me? A Libertarian? I stake the foundations of my political viewpoints in those very ideas! But then to go on and call me sheltered, building my knowledge and experience on TV, that's condescending, that's rude, that's ignorant. It sounds like the knee-jerk reaction of someone who doesn't like to have his ideas challenged... Also, you apply geography where it's irrelevant. You could be on the other side of the universe, but you're still human, and the argument is about judicial systems, in developed, modern nations at that.

You're seem to me the kind of guy who could stare at grass for 3 days and not realize it's a different color from a clear blue sky...

Now, can you at least stay on the civilized level and answer my post, clear up the technicals, would he himself have to say something, would he have to personally testify to his guilt? And so on and so forth...

I could also have said one was founded by Pilgrims seeking refuge from religious persecution, while the other was founded by people sent there in chains for stealing loaves of bread.

But you didn't, why is that?

Gab, as I recall you shot off semantics the whole time while I tried to argue with a reasoned position. Given that your whole point was an abstract assumption and idea based on media hype by various sources rather than actual research into the facts, I wouldn't call that a debate.

[ 04-05-2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

Personally, I'm FOR the death Penalty! Some people DESERVE to die! People like Child-Molesters, Murderers, and other sickos! I say let the sick mutha@#!?^&* sizzle like breakfast!

[Timber Loftis]

Just a friendly reminder, Yorick. No worries. I'd be hard-pressed to defend against your allegations, anyway. Suffice to say I think we have come a long way in the U.S., and our story is one for all to learn from.

[Yorick]

Oblivion, I live in America. I spent the first 29 years of my life growing up in Australia. I do understand the unifying similarities, and the differences. You do not. Quite clearly, because as well as missing what I was emphasising about the Australian mindset, and the complete contextual absurdity of suggesting an Australian governmental conspiracy to kill it's own citizens.

1. You have no facts to support this conspiracy.
2. You have loose speculations about Bryants case, based on the feasibility he accomplished his task simply because he was untrained. Guess what bucko... welcome to the Australian way. Self trained Australians are far from an anomaly. I am one. Professional musician and music college lecturer with no music degree, or education degree. Never needed it. Over here the first thing people ask me is where I studied.

The issue of Bryant being untrained is a nonissue to the Australian mind. All our soldiers - world renowned and famed in WWI and WWII, were... wait for it.... VOLUNTEERS. Not professional hardnuts, but everyday joes who signed up, and got pretty basic training.

This is why I suggested you go and visit the place before concocting, or defending a completely nonsensical idea.

3.Your facts about Bryants trial are moot. He was legally convicted, as he pleaded guilty 72 times. The Australian judicial system allows for guilty verdicts to be convicted rather than go to an expensive and greater penalising trial. Everything followed the established legal lines. Again, you seem to be applying an American mindset, to an Australian scenario.

You have to understand
1.The cultural context
2.The NATIONAL legal precedents.

Now, if you are going to persist in suggesting the Australian government killed it's citizens I suggest you

1.Provide evidence other than supposed flaws in one legal case.

For, even if Bryants case WAS rushed through, you still have no proof the government was behind it. Nothing.

2.Provide a motive for this action. Who gains? What was the point?

Unless you do these two things, I suggest you quite simply shut up.

You may call me rude, but I find your suggestion about my countrys actions and in effect, character, a heinously insulting and libelous accusation I totally disdain, scorn and find completely void of reason. So consider the insult level when reading any rudeness in my replys.

Your suggestion is simply incomprehensible in an Australian context, and this was why I posted the differences from America, where, conspiracy theories seem to flourish.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Whackmiester: Personally, I'm FOR the death Penalty! Some people DESERVE to die! People like Child-Molesters, Murderers, and other sickos! I say let the sick mutha@#!?^&* sizzle like breakfast!

An anti death penalty argument has nothing to do with whether the culprits deserve to die, but centre on infailable proof, and governments leading by example, regarding respecting human life.

When you kill, you are no better than the murderer you're killing. Every murderer justifies the kill, or they wouldn't do it. Reasons for killing are subjective and change from person to person, culture to culture and time period to time period. In calling for ANYONES death, you are doing exactly the same thing as a murderer. Making a decision about someones right to exist.

Only by removing the subjective reasons for killing, by making any human orchestrated death within society illegal, do we start to raise the sanctity of human life.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: quote: I could also have said one was founded by Pilgrims seeking refuge from religious persecution, while the other was founded by people sent there in chains for stealing loaves of bread.

But you didn't, why is that?
[/QUOTE]??? You quoted me. I think you'll agree I most certainly DID say that, or you'd have had nothing to quote. It's called an appendix. An amendment. An additional statement. The surrounding wording ("I could have said") was simply.... "flowery".... for lack of a better phrase.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Yorick: Oblivion, I live in America. I spent the first 29 years of my life growing up in Australia. I do understand the unifying similarities, and the differences. You do not. Quite clearly, because as well as missing what I was emphasising about the Australian mindset, and the complete contextual absurdity of suggesting an Australian governmental conspiracy to kill it's own citizens.

You overemphasize geography... It doesn't matter where you are, you're still human, and if a government happens to be running the place, bad things are bound to happen. I believe history, all the way back to Assyria and even further, supports this line of thinking.

1. You have no facts to support this conspiracy.

Nor did I maintain that such a conspiracy actually existed. I merely supposed it. From what I'd read, heard and seen, it looked like certain fixin's in the pot just plain weren't right.

2. You have loose speculations about Bryants case, based on the feasibility he accomplished his task simply because he was untrained. Guess what bucko... welcome to the Australian way. Self trained Australians are far from an anomaly. I am one. Professional musician and music college lecturer with no music degree, or education degree. Never needed it. Over here the first thing people ask me is where I studied.

Think in a grander context first. Don't box the world off on national borders. Self trained HUMANS are common in Australia, and I applaud your accomplishments. Another thing to reflect on, is that I'm talking about near super-human marksmanship from a RETARDED MAN. A very large part of being a good shot goes above physical shape, and is cerebral in nature. I seriously doubt a man who's legally handicapped in his fashion would be able to apply that in the scenario given. Too many shots, too little time.

The issue of Bryant being untrained is a nonissue to the Australian mind.

But I'm not Australian, and he would be exhibiting marksmanship skills well beyond what a dimwitted person could attain on their own. How long did he own the rifle? Ask any competition shooter, it takes time to get to know the ins and outs of a weapon, and to be proficient to the degree that he apparently was, would require years of experience. Humans are still human in Australia.

All our soldiers - world renowned and famed in WWI and WWII, were... wait for it.... VOLUNTEERS. Not professional hardnuts, but everyday joes who signed up, and got pretty basic training.

So were our volunteer soldiers in WW2, 30 Day GIs led into combat by 90 day wonders...

This is why I suggested you go and visit the place before concocting, or defending a completely nonsensical idea.

Yes, and your suggestion is as relevant to the point as the weight of the keyboard I'm using to type this response...

3.Your facts about Bryants trial are moot. He was legally convicted, as he pleaded guilty 72 times. The Australian judicial system allows for guilty verdicts to be convicted rather than go to an expensive and greater penalising trial. Everything followed the established legal lines. Again, you seem to be applying an American mindset, to an Australian scenario.

Yes, it's Australia, but guess what? My argument goes above America, Australia, or government in general. The point is about Western governments and their judicial systems, and how this trial could very well be squeaked through. He, Bryant, did not have to plead guilty, his lawyer did. His lawyer said everything. He didn't have to proclaim or state his guilt in the matter at all. You fail to see the importance of this.

You have to understand 1.The cultural context 2.The NATIONAL legal precedents. Now, if you are going to persist in suggesting the Australian government killed it's citizens I suggest you 1.Provide evidence other than supposed flaws in one legal case. For, even if Bryants case WAS rushed through, you still have no proof the government was behind it. Nothing.

Culture is irrelevant, the point is what happened in the courtroom, and how it applies to Bryant personally maintaining his innocence. The legal precedents were the significant point on which I argued that little hook in supposed conspiracy. I'm not picking one case at random, I'm picking the relevant case. It doesn't matter if it was rushed. Like I said, no matter who would be behind such a conspiracy, the only person who would have to be in on such a thing would be Bryant's attorney. As you said, it just glided into automated conviction with entering of the plea. Those legal precedents you demand I know something about, they would cause this to happen. Conspiracies can be incredibly small.

2.Provide a motive for this action. Who gains? What was the point?

There's a laundry list of motivations of government officials, vigilantes, and a rabid anti-gun conspiracy.

1. Government officials who want to further strengthen existing gun control measures... Vague, hard to work, but all the same possible, plus they have pull on all angles. They can engineer every detail, top to bottom.

2. A conspiracy operating well outside the government realm, a group comitted to remove firearms completely from the Australian continent by any means, whatsoever. It falls in line with groups like PETA who harbor terrorists and have been found to promote tactics including infecting animals with diseases to stunt meat production. Bring the two together: An anti-gun group murders people with firearms to get rid of them at large, an animal rights group injures and kills animals to stop meat producers.

Unless you do these two things, I suggest you quite simply shut up.

You may call me rude, but I find your suggestion about my countrys actions and in effect, character, a heinously insulting and libelous accusation I totally disdain, scorn and find completely void of reason. So consider the insult level when reading any rudeness in my replys.

So when you insult my country it's okay? I regard that as hypocrisy. No matter what I say you don't give credence to your argument when you insult my person. I don't blame your country as a whole. This group would have to be incredibly small. It could be the work of three or four men, actually. One for the lawyer, two shooters and, as needed, a problem solver within the government, who could smooth out bumps as they arise. They wouldn't be taking orders from anyone else, wouldn't need any help from an outside source. Even further, we could make the lawyer and the fixer also the shooters: The work of two men. Is it then so hard to believe that two men would infact resort to terrorist tactics to further their agenda? In looking over what I've managed to dig up, the best I can say is that it's unlikely it started in the government, or ended there. Though certainly individuals who were in the employ of the government on some level or another would be necessary to ensure the right sequence of events. The nature of the judicial system as you described it to me shows it would be easy to make an innocent man guilty, at least if he happens to be like Bryant. The government men might just be going about their duties, not knowing they're aiding a conspiracy by doing their job. All at once, the natural flows of beauracracy work without even knowing so, to cover up a conspiracy. Understand that due to the nature of government, a beauracrat performing his duties does so until something happens to interfere with that, some order from higher up, getting fired, a change in duties, whatever. Liken it to a river for a moment. Imagine it, a river flows without needing any energy to do so. Gravity does all the work. All you have to do is line up the pebbles so the flow sends them into the Delta, where all things seem to disappear and become inseperable from the others. Applying that directly backwards, all they'd have to do is make sure certain individuals did their duties on certain things, objects, actions, whichever was relevant, the doing itself would happen irrespective. The best conspiracies don't paddle upriver, the ride the flow right into the international waters of beauracracy.

Your suggestion is simply incomprehensible in an Australian context, and this was why I posted the differences from America, where, conspiracy theories seem to flourish.

It's very comprehensible if you stop segmenting your picture of the world assuming nations are actually seperate anymore. The UN's existence has completely dissolved national sovereignty, not to mention CIA actions in South America...

Think outside the early 20th century box the media has been leading us all into. National borders are a non-issue, and have been since 1945.

Is there a lot of power jockying among your beauracrats? If so, consider each agency an infinitely high wall with invisible doors that only certain relatively unknown people have the keys to. That in mind, if something got caught up in the tangles of a particular law enforcement agency, it isn't going any further.

[Donut]

Who knows what a sick retarded individual thinks?

[Timber Loftis]

Fair enought Donut, but then why are we in the business of assigning or not assigning criminal culpability to that person in the first instance? Additionally, shouldn't we have a little QA/QC control when manufacturing humans -- I mean, some models are simply defective and should be earmarked for destruction, no?