ReBirth 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteI'll ask you one more time, since you still haven't answered. Why should "the state" have the right to kill someone just because they warned them they would be killed? Why can't I kill you since you've posted after I warned you that I would kill you if you continued to post? What is the difference? Please answer that.
The difference is that the legislature, elected by the people (that would be you and me, unless you fail to vote), has not empowered you to kill me in the event I continue posting. If, however, you can persuade someone to pass a law that says, "If Rhonda Lea shall post, so shall she die." then I guess you can kill me without fear of reprisal, or at least, legal reprisal.
Further, if you want to kill me and you're willing to take the consequences of breaking the law of the land, then this would be a good time of year to do it. Nice weather, and the local cops are busy persecuting pilots, so you might even get away uncaught.
Take it down a notch, and make it "if you don't stop posting, I'm going to lock you away in a room somewhere." That's just as illegal for you to do, but it's what we do to criminals as a matter of course.
When you substitute that analogy, it almost sounds like you're advocating anarchy--commit a crime and go free.
I don't want to live in your world.
rl
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
QuoteWhen you substitute that analogy, it almost sounds like you're advocating anarchy--commit a crime and go free.
I don't want to live in your world.
From where did you get that impression? Gee whilickers!
ReBirth 0
QuoteThe difference is that the legislature, elected by the people (that would be you and me, unless you fail to vote), has not empowered you to kill me in the event I continue posting.
So legality is your moral compass? If something is deemed "the law" then it is always right?
QuoteTake it down a notch, and make it "if you don't stop posting, I'm going to lock you away in a room somewhere." That's just as illegal for you to do, but it's what we do to criminals as a matter of course.
The entire point of this discussion is the taking of a human life. If they locked him in a room somewhere we wouldn't even be having this debate.
QuoteWhen you substitute that analogy, it almost sounds like you're advocating anarchy--commit a crime and go free.
I advocated life in prison in lieu of death. How did you ever come ot the conclusion above?
QuoteI don't want to live in your world.
At least in my world people continue to live, their lives aren't ended based on the judgment of someone else.
rehmwa 2
QuoteWhy should "the state" have the right to kill someone just because they warned them they would be killed?
That's where the drift took us. Fascinating isn't it?
I thought he was being killed (plan, scheduled and executed - under law) for smuggling drugs. Not for being belligerent. I think the punishment for the crime of belligerence should be mockery. Lots of mockery.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
jakee 1,489
QuoteIt sounds like a big, impersonal machine to me, but in this country, at least, it's the voters who put the death penalty in place.
Was there a nation wide referendum?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuoteWhen you substitute that analogy, it almost sounds like you're advocating anarchy--commit a crime and go free.
I don't want to live in your world.
From where did you get that impression? Gee whilickers!
Except for one very recent post, where he said, "But when someone is already locked away in a cell, no danger to others, what possible reason is there to kill them?" there has been no mention of what to do with someone that has committed what we consider a capital crime.
Most of the rest of the posts give me precisely the feeling I mention above.
rl
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
ReBirth 0
I never once advocated not punishing someone for crime. Every comment I've made has been in relation to the act of killing someone and the justification others are using for the supposed "right" the state has to kill somone.
kallend 2,026
If the state has the moral authority to execute people without question, how does that NOT apply to pre-2003 Iraq?
Why do Saddam's executions warrant such outrage that we were entitled to invade? Apparently Saddam's executions were LEGAL under the Iraqi code in force at the time.
According to some in this thread, we should just say that Saddam's victims brought it on themselves and deserved what they got and it is/was none of our business.
INVADE SINGAPORE!
Why do Saddam's executions warrant such outrage that we were entitled to invade? Apparently Saddam's executions were LEGAL under the Iraqi code in force at the time.
According to some in this thread, we should just say that Saddam's victims brought it on themselves and deserved what they got and it is/was none of our business.
INVADE SINGAPORE!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteINVADE SINGAPORE!
"Legality" is not my moral compass. I was criticizing your analogy, which is to say, it is a crummy analogy. If it doesn't work my way, it doesn't work your way either. I simply replaced one punishment with another--it's no more right for you to lock me in a box than it is to kill me, but if I commit a crime, it is okay for the state to follow the law and do either one that applies to my case. If you don't understand the purpose of analogy, don't use analogy.
There are a lot of laws with which I don't agree. I am aware that if I do not obey them, I may be punished if I'm caught. If I choose not to obey those laws, I have accepted the consequences.
I answered the thing about life in prison in my post to Sudsy. You haven't been advocating that at all; you've been pretty much silent on it because you've been too busy trying to redefine the language to make your point.
The only objection I can see to capital punishment is the fear of putting an innocent person to death. I've said that before in this thread.
In this case, there was no question of guilt and he knew what the consequences would be if he got caught. He chose to risk death, and he lost. I don't see any reason why he--or anyone else who makes the same choice--should get a free pass.
rl
There are a lot of laws with which I don't agree. I am aware that if I do not obey them, I may be punished if I'm caught. If I choose not to obey those laws, I have accepted the consequences.
I answered the thing about life in prison in my post to Sudsy. You haven't been advocating that at all; you've been pretty much silent on it because you've been too busy trying to redefine the language to make your point.
The only objection I can see to capital punishment is the fear of putting an innocent person to death. I've said that before in this thread.
In this case, there was no question of guilt and he knew what the consequences would be if he got caught. He chose to risk death, and he lost. I don't see any reason why he--or anyone else who makes the same choice--should get a free pass.
rl
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
ReBirth 0
John...you're not dumb so I just have to assume you are crazy. The gov't is always right, all gov'ts. But when there is dispute between two gov'ts, our's wins. Haven't you read the rules?
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If the state has the moral authority to execute people
>without question, how does that NOT apply to pre-2003 Iraq?
Because there is a difference between executing someone for murder one, or even selling drugs, and executing someone for living in a certain town.
>without question, how does that NOT apply to pre-2003 Iraq?
Because there is a difference between executing someone for murder one, or even selling drugs, and executing someone for living in a certain town.
ReBirth 0
QuoteBecause there is a difference between executing someone for murder one, or even selling drugs, and executing someone for living in a certain town.
Really? What's the difference?
The state is assuming the responsibility of killing them. The state has to exhert an effort to commit this act. They knowingly and willingly, plan for and then cary out the termination of the life of a human being.
I'll ask you one more time, since you still haven't answered. Why should "the state" have the right to kill someone just because they warned them they would be killed? Why can't I kill you since you've posted after I warned you that I would kill you if you continued to post? What is the difference? Please answer that.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites