EPTAlso I support Physician idea completely
Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
Also I support Physician idea completely | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:11 HamerD wrote: Yep. True. I don't want it to happen, but I don't give a shit if it does. Wait, are you telling me that if you saw an angry mob grabbing these cunts and stamping on their heads you would feel bad? God I know I wouldn't. That would bother me immensely. You hate them for the crime or murder yet you use murder as a tool against them...Hmmmm | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:20 DV8 wrote: That would bother me immensely. You hate them for the crime or murder yet you use murder as a tool against them...Hmmmm No of course I don't hate them. It's not the fact that they committed murder...it's the fact that the tortured/laughed/took pictures at funeral of victims/were unprovoked/ did it for fun; that leads me to say I wouldn't care if a crowd ripped them to shreds. | ||
|
Dgtl
Canada889 Posts
| ||
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:24 HamerD wrote: No of course I don't hate them. It's not the fact that they committed murder...it's the fact that the tortured/laughed/took pictures at funeral of victims/were unprovoked/ did it for fun; that leads me to say I wouldn't care if a crowd ripped them to shreds. I for one dont want them to be killed, just to be slowly tortured for they rest of their lives, you know for a long time, a quick and smooth death is an easy way for them, just torture them for years and years! also make them work for society like cleaning shit, when they die donate they organs and stuff like that, just like physician said | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:24 HamerD wrote: No of course I don't hate them. It's not the fact that they committed murder...it's the fact that the tortured/laughed/took pictures at funeral of victims/were unprovoked/ did it for fun; that leads me to say I wouldn't care if a crowd ripped them to shreds. So what you're saying is you're indifference to a bloody outcome to them is based on the way they committed their murder. If they just shot all their victims would that really change the fact that they took away a life. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them?? Hamerd is not exactly a man of logical thought, he believes in astrology. | ||
Smurg
Australia3818 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:13 Dgtl wrote: Man this is off topic Not really. | ||
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 23 2008 12:41 Jusciax wrote: I don't agree about taking money into account when making judicial decisions, but here's some facts about death penalty costs. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day. Cost per inmate: I dunno, 5 bucks? I don't think those chemicals are that expensive. You can't argue that the death penalty is wrong because it is currently expensive. It doesn't have to be. | ||
|
kazokun
United States163 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:51 Savio wrote: This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day. Cost per inmate: I dunno, 5 bucks? I don't think those chemicals are that expensive. You can't argue that the death penalty is wrong because it is currently expensive. It doesn't have to be. Ever heard of the appeals process? There's a reason it's there. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them?? Because they have done nothing to me or anyone I care about. Hate is a personal issue, nothing to do with passing judgement on issues like this. I can easily not care if they are ripped to shreds, because I think they deserve it. I don't want it, but don't care if it happens to them. My feelings of moral outrage at a lynch mob destroying them are all dissolved by my feelings of moral outrage at their actions. But not hate. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:39 Frits wrote: Hamerd is not exactly a man of logical thought, he believes in astrology. At least you spelled my name correctly. From the looks of it you wouldn't know logic if it gave your first born cot death. The parts of astrology I believe in have never been disproven by any research. We can start a separate thread on it if you want. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:29 DV8 wrote: Yes, significantly, imo, but killing 21 people without remorse or provocation in any way is still a base affront to the concept of humanity and is still enough, in my opinion, to remove the human rights of the murderers.So what you're saying is you're indifference to a bloody outcome to them is based on the way they committed their murder. If they just shot all their victims would that really change the fact that they took away a life. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 23 2008 13:56 kazokun wrote: Ever heard of the appeals process? There's a reason it's there. The reason it's there, for the 10th time, is that too many people are put up for execution trials. Unlimited free retrials (a very expensive strategic method of delaying execution) is only morally obligatory if the evidence isn't 100% positive. When you have killers with VIDEOS of their acts of murder, how can you POSSIBLY require a retrial? ps sorry for quadrupost can someone pm me how to quote several ppl in the same post aside from a lot of copy pasting? | ||
|
Dgtl
Canada889 Posts
| ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On December 23 2008 14:19 HamerD wrote: At least you spelled my name correctly. From the looks of it you wouldn't know logic if it gave your first born cot death. The parts of astrology I believe in have never been disproven by any research. We can start a separate thread on it if you want. It's alright, I was just trolling. I know exactly how you feel, the parts of the flying spaghetti monster I believe in have never been disproven by any research either. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
On December 22 2008 16:47 kazokun wrote: You just wanna kill someone yourself. The death penalty is only a way to legitimize murder. I bet you'd find pleasure in killing them. Even if that were true, the difference between me and them would be that they were getting pleasure by killing innocents. Arguing against punishing guilty people because the punishment sucks when it's done to innocent people doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's apply your train of thought to that guy in Austria who imprisoned a large chunk of his family. I say the guy belongs in jail. Would you respond by saying "Jail is the only way to legitimize keeping people captive. I bet you'd find pleasure in locking him up"? Hell no. Captivity sucks, but the dude is not an innocent. He should never have kept his family in confinement, but that does not mean he shouldn't be confined himself. You'll find that people aren't always going to be swayed by you saying "we shouldn't do to them what they did to others; it makes us just as bad". Captivity sucks, moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment. Some people will say that death sucks, but moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty. But you implying that people who want to see them dead are as bad as the murderers is not very compelling to me. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 23 2008 14:33 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Even if that were true, the difference between me and them would be that they were getting pleasure by killing innocents. Arguing against punishing guilty people because the punishment sucks when it's done to innocent people doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's apply your train of thought to that guy in Austria who imprisoned a large chunk of his family. I say the guy belongs in jail. Would you respond by saying "Jail is the only way to legitimize keeping people captive. I bet you'd find pleasure in locking him up"? Hell no. Captivity sucks, but the dude is not an innocent. He should never have kept his family in confinement, but that does not mean he shouldn't be confined himself. You'll find that people aren't always going to be swayed by you saying "we shouldn't do to them what they did to others; it makes us just as bad". Captivity sucks, moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment. Some people will say that death sucks, but moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty. But you implying that people who want to see them dead are as bad as the murderers is not very compelling to me. Awesome post. Very well put. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day. guilty doesnt mean no shadow of a doubt, it means no reasonable doubt | ||
| ||
