Exacution!

I KNEW that punk was gonna fry!

[Luvian]

I don't like the death penalty, it's just too easy for the guy. Just some gas and it's over.

I say put him in a small cell and leave him there in isolation for the rest of his life. He's going to have years to think about what he did. That's a lot worst punition than a painless sleep. If someone does not fear death, then he's getting no punition for his actions.

[ 11-27-2003, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Gab]

I don't know why so many people still believe in the death penalty. It dosn't justify killing someone because there're a murder. I am against the death penalty (extremly evil people are the few exceptions).

Loftis, I strongly disagree with your views on it. The price a murderor should pay is to spend the rest of their lives in prison locked up like an animal. This will make them really think about what they've done.

"you can put a man in prison, but you cant make him think"

parent: what have you done?! go to your room and think about this!
child: uh, let's see, i've got books, and tv, and i have time to exercise, dont have to do chores... yeah, okay, i'll go to my room! you really showed me!
parent: i just cant understand why i cant get through to him!

sorry, gab, but do you really believe that? cuz 1) it aint a deterrent, B) it means the criminal gets off better than the victim, and III) society foots the bill for their holiday. do you call that justice?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: 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

I agree. Timber gave an excellent summation as to why the Death Penalty is an acceptable punishment for the crime of pre-meditated murder (murder being the only crime for which the DP can be considered, AFAIK). He also gave a very good explanation of why the current circumstances of the DP need to be re-evaluated. Made me reconsider MY position on the issue. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: 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.

Actually, Pikachu, the argument of whether or not the fetus has a soul is irrelevant. What IS relevant are "signs of life", and every fetus has a discernable heartbeat at the "age" of 7 weeks! That is an irrefutable medical fact. My main argument against abortion is exactly what Timber mentioned earlier...that the courts (and most pro-abortion folks) claim that the rights of the mother outwiegh the right of the fetus - saying that the mother "has a right" to make a decision concerning her own body. I'm sorry, the mother had a chance to make a decision about her body several weeks BEFORE the fetus was conceived and reached the age of 7 weeks. Except in the case of rape or incest, I feel the mother already made her "body choice" and should live with the consequences of her decision. Abortion is very rarely a case of preventing a medical emergency on the part of the mother and more often an alternative means of birth control.

For the record, however, I do acknowledge that I do not have the right to tell the mother she cannot have an abortion. As much as I disagree with the decision, I would NOT vote to make abortions illegal.

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: 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 agree with you 100% on this issue. I don't agree with suicide in general, but I do agree with your statement that the individual should be allowed to make the decision for themselves - especially in special cases such as the cancer patient living in chronic pain.

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: 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?

Again, I agree with you completely. I consider murder to be one of the worst crimes a person can commit. However, I will be the first person to pull the trigger if someone is threatening my family - especially one of my children. I also accept that I will have to face the consequences for that decision in this life and the next.

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: 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?

Another good argument and example of why war might be justified under certain circumstances. One option that it does not consider, however, is that the first tribe could try to move and relocate to another area with adequate resources that is not part of another tribe's territory. Of course, that may or may not be a feasible option in real life.

And - if you look throughout history - I believe you will discover the underlying goal of most wars was exactly what your example touched upon - the expansion of territory and acquisition of natural resources.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by sultan: "you can put a man in prison, but you cant make him think" parent: what have you done?! go to your room and think about this! child: uh, let's see, i've got books, and tv, and i have time to exercise, dont have to do chores... yeah, okay, i'll go to my room! you really showed me! parent: i just cant understand why i cant get through to him! sorry, gab, but do you really believe that? cuz 1) it aint a deterrent, B) it means the criminal gets off better than the victim, and III) society foots the bill for their holiday. do you call that justice?

Come on, there is a big difference between being isolated in am empty small cell with no human contact for 50 years and being grounded in your room for a night by your mother...

[Gab]

Originally posted by sultan: "you can put a man in prison, but you cant make him think" parent: what have you done?! go to your room and think about this! child: uh, let's see, i've got books, and tv, and i have time to exercise, dont have to do chores... yeah, okay, i'll go to my room! you really showed me! parent: i just cant understand why i cant get through to him! sorry, gab, but do you really believe that? cuz 1) it aint a deterrent, B) it means the criminal gets off better than the victim, and III) society foots the bill for their holiday. do you call that justice?

I agree with Luvian. Come on Sultan, do you think being in prison for 40 years is the same as being inside your room for a day??

I hate the death penalty because it's more of a revenge thing rather than justice. We get to kill you because you killed someone else. Dosn't that sound at least a little like revenge? Besides, that's not going to bring the victim(s)back.

[Yorick]

If freedom is so devalued, and not a cherished gift, which when taken away can be unbearable.... why have so many willingly died in pursuit of it?

The proof is, that many would prefer and have preferred death, than to live without freedom.

My arguments against the death penalty have nothing to do with punishment, fear, retribution or anything to do with the crime. I am not focussing on the problem. Not focussing on a way to deal with the person committing the problem, but focussing on a solution reality of establishing an increased value on human life throughout all society. All humanity.

No death in war, suicide, abortion, euthenasia, death penalty, murder, assassination.

No cases where human hands are justified in taking a human life. Family, friend foe, self, criminal, enemy.

[ 11-28-2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Pikachu_PM]

Originally posted by Yorick: If freedom is so devalued, and not a cherished gift, which when taken away can be unbearable.... why have so many willingly died in pursuit of it? The proof is, that many would prefer and have preferred death, than to live without freedom. My arguments against the death penalty have nothing to do with punishment, fear, retribution or anything to do with the crime. I am not focussing on the problem. Not focussing on a way to deal with the person committing the problem, but focussing on a solution reality of establishing an increased value on human life throughout all society. All humanity. No death in war, suicide, abortion, euthenasia, death penalty, murder, assassination. No cases where human hands are justified in taking a human life. Family, friend foe, self, criminal, enemy.

I'm not quite getting your point here...as it stands I can take it to mean two things

1) You are stating general assumptions about a perfect world. To this I have to say that it is, in a way, insulting. Of course we we all like to live in such a world...such things don't need to be argued...and to bring them up is to imply none of us would want the things you mentioned.

2) You are making a general statement that all of the items you mentioned are wrong and that *anyone* who does not agree with you or commits these acts is immoral. If that is the case please read my earlier arguments. The realities of life cause good ppl to do things they normally wouldn't do...because sometimes "peace" is simply another word for surrender.

There are bad people in this world, and giving in to them would make the world a worse place...not a better one. Further...in a world with no Euthenasia there must first be--imo--a world with out cancer and suffering. An ideal is great, but it is useless without placing it in context of reality.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: If freedom is so devalued, and not a cherished gift, which when taken away can be unbearable.... why have so many willingly died in pursuit of it? The proof is, that many would prefer and have preferred death, than to live without freedom. My arguments against the death penalty have nothing to do with punishment, fear, retribution or anything to do with the crime. I am not focussing on the problem. Not focussing on a way to deal with the person committing the problem, but focussing on a solution reality of establishing an increased value on human life throughout all society. All humanity. No death in war, suicide, abortion, euthenasia, death penalty, murder, assassination. No cases where human hands are justified in taking a human life. Family, friend foe, self, criminal, enemy.

I'm not quite getting your point here...as it stands I can take it to mean two things

1) You are stating general assumptions about a perfect world. To this I have to say that it is, in a way, insulting. Of course we we all like to live in such a world...such things don't need to be argued...and to bring them up is to imply none of us would want the things you mentioned.

2) You are making a general statement that all of the items you mentioned are wrong and that *anyone* who does not agree with you or commits these acts is immoral. If that is the case please read my earlier arguments. The realities of life cause good ppl to do things they normally wouldn't do...because sometimes "peace" is simply another word for surrender.

There are bad people in this world, and giving in to them would make the world a worse place...not a better one. Further...in a world with no Euthenasia there must first be--imo--a world with out cancer and suffering. An ideal is great, but it is useless without placing it in context of reality. [/QUOTE]1. How is it insulting? I don't see it. If people want a world where no human ends human life, why are there death penalty advocates? Why are there people who say killing in self defense makes a killing "o.k."? Why are some suggesting euthenasia and abortion and suicide are all acceptable elements of human society?

I am drawing a hard line in the sand. No grey areas, in an effort to present a shift in values to achieve a certain end. Make no taking of human life acceptable. Let there be no question in a persons mind, that when confronted with an issue, they see actively effecting the end of human life as an option.

For, if a democratic government can do it, why not an individual? If a doctor or lawmaker or mother can decide when it's o.k. to end human life, why not anyone else?

Of course people carry guns to use the threat of ending life as a deterrent. But what if there was no threat to your own life? What if human life was so valued that if someone broke into your home, you knew the person wouldn't kill you? What if the burglar knew you wouldn't kill them?

It is a solution. Lower the expectation of negative consequences. Raise the value, the fundamental value in human life.

This is a solution to achieving a certain end.

Governments should lead by example. That is true leadership. By example, not by directive. How can a government say "Our society shouldn't kill each other" and then kill certain sections of that society? Hypocrisy.

Movie makers should take a similar initiative. Society is increasingly desensitised to violence and death through thre proliferation of it in film, and the unbalanced covering of it in the news media.

How many births make it on the front page? How many murders? What is the greater miracle?

Part of the "deification of rarity" underpinning capitalism that ends up putting rare occurences in our face as though they are commonplace, and devalues the everyday miracle into almost nonentity simply because it is so common.

Like eyesight. How many of us fortunate enough to see, walk around constantly in awe that we are seeing colours and shapes? It's a miracle. "Oh but it's a little thing"

Tell the blind man that sight is a "little thing". Ask a blind man what they'd give to be able to see.

"Kill Bill" is by all accounts the latest film to have so much violence it is humorous.

And yet America has problems with violence.

Death penalty, violent films, gun ownership, nation forged through revolutionary violence, nation solidified through civil war violence, human life devalued into slavery, human life devalued through abortion and euthenasia (if a life is unwanted or a burden it's expendable right?)

Anyone see a trend? Anyone see the commonality?

Making the value of life SUBJECTIVE allows people in a given situation to make a decision about the value of anothers life.

I am advocating removing that from a persons decisionmaking power. Establishing an objective fundamental value to human life, so that no-one, ever can say that a human ending human life is justified.