Members dravenzouk Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 have you ever noticed that the ACLU is OK with abortion but are against the death penalty? Have you ever noticed that so many christians and conservatives say, "thou shall not kill", but they are for the death penalty? That's a contradiction I could never understand - and VERY common amongst pro-life types.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Have you ever noticed that so many christians and conservatives say, "thou shall not kill", but they are for the death penalty? Actually, no I haven't because saying 'christians' and 'conservatives' ( by the way: Of which, I am neither) cover a broad range and scope of people and is not a dedicated named entity/organization like the American Civil Liberties Union ( I specifically said ACLU, not liberals....'liberals' is the broad blanket term and I know a lot of liberals that do not agree with the ACLU) ....also, most of the conservatives that I know have no problem with killing if the situation warrants it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dravenzouk Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Actually, no I haven't because saying 'christians' and 'conservatives' ( by the way: Of which, I am neither) cover a broad range and scope of people and is not a dedicated named entity/organization like the American Civil Liberties Union ( I specifically said ACLU, not liberals....'liberals' is the broad blanket term and I know a lot of liberals that do not agree with the ACLU) ....also, most of the conservatives that I know have no problem with killing if the situation warrants it I chose my words carefully as well. I said "so many" as opposed to "all", because I did not mean "all". And I said "christians AND conservatives" rather that "christians/conservatives" because I do see them as two distinct groups, and I was referring to both of them (not the two of them as one). So the implication stands - many (not all) christians, as well as many (not all) conservatives are for the death penalty. Even if you haven't noticed. The same goes for "pro-life" types, which are a third distinction. And yes, a single person can embody all three types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rikshaw Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 everyone that starts a thread with "subject: discuss" is a {censored}ing retard. why don't you discuss you {censored}ing stupid asshat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 everyone that starts a thread with "subject: discuss" is a {censored}ing retard. why don't you discuss you {censored}ing stupid asshat? Asshat encompasses a broad term -- not all asshats are bad. It is easy to imply that all asshats look great if Im wearing a sweater...Not all sweaters, mind you, but a turtleneck with an asshat and Converse Chuck-Es look great and work although a contradiction in terms.............. Discuss..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chubrocker Posted January 18, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 everyone that starts a thread with "subject: discuss" is a {censored}ing retard. why don't you discuss you {censored}ing stupid asshat? Now, this is some dialogue I can work with! BTW, I'm just a retard, not a F'ing retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tlaloc Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Asshat encompasses a broad term -- not all asshats are bad. It is easy to imply that all asshats look great if Im wearing a sweater...Not all sweaters, mind you, but a turtleneck with an asshat and Converse Chuck-Es look great and work although a contradiction in terms.............. Discuss..... I let a girl sit on my hat once, does that make it an asshat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 The one that did it for me, was when the teachers were encouraged to use non red colors in their corrections of kids homework, because Red was a harsh color, and might send the wrong message, or hurt feelings. Oh the worst I heard was not wanting to call a failed paper a 'fail'... rather a 'deferred success'. I wanted to throw up when I heard that. Your kid will fail in life from time to time. Everyone does, it is normal. They should know what faliure tastes like from a young age. Just like they should know what falling down and getting cut means. And getting muddy and dirty. It's a global (read: developed world) phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rippin' Robin Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Of course you're all a bunch of wussies. Why do you think we let you have your own country in the first place? "You can keep you filthy stinkin' New York, there's more wuss here than the average boy-band that's about to be invented in the next, oh, 400 years!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tom_s252 Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 have you ever noticed that the ACLU is OK with abortion but are against the death penalty? If you view abortion from the point of view of respecting an adult human being's body, it's actually quite a coherent view. The way I see it, if modern medicine presents a woman with the choice to withdraw the natural life support that her body provides a potential being, she should be allowed to make that choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted January 18, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 If you view abortion from the point of view of respecting an adult human being's body, it's actually quite a coherent view. If you view the death penalty as disrespecting an adult human being's body, it's actually quite an incoherant view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 The way I see it, if modern medicine presents a woman with the choice to withdraw the natural life support that her body provides a potential being, she should be allowed to make that choice. The way I see it, if modern artillery presents me with the ability to withdraw the natural life of rapists, murderers, and child molesters, I should be allowed to make that choice. Not let them rot in a jail w/ a free education, free food and cable TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super_Donut_Man Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 I would participate in this thread, but I just ran out of anti-bacterial hand wipes and don't want to touch the keyboard too much. How can you ever live. You didn't uninfect and de-dirtify your Key board? I am suprised, and shocked, and marginally disgusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted January 18, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 How can you ever live. You didn't uninfect and de-dirtify your Key board? I am suprised, and shocked, and marginally disgusted. I know. I've been discussing it at length in my group and individual therapy sessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tom_s252 Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 The way I see it, if modern artillery presents me with the ability to withdraw the natural life of rapists, murderers, and child molesters, I should be allowed to make that choice. Not let them rot in a jail w/ a free education, free food and cable TV. Right, so you should be allowed to choose what happens to other people? How would you like it if someone chose what happened to you, and happened to think guns were fun? Before anyone says it, I'm fully in support of the judicial system choosing what happens to convicted criminals, I just don't think death should be among those choices. Awfully permanent, you see, and mistakes will always happen. Perhaps more to the point, I am yet to see anyone justify why they should have the right to remove another's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Right, so you should be allowed to choose what happens to other people? How would you like it if someone chose what happened to you, and happened to think guns were fun?Before anyone says it, I'm fully in support of the judicial system choosing what happens to convicted criminals, I just don't think death should be among those choices. Awfully permanent, you see, and mistakes will always happen. Perhaps more to the point, I am yet to see anyone justify why they should have the right to remove another's life. At least those people had choices. Abortion is murder of a helpless individual. Everything you're saying in the second para directly relates to the abortion issue as well. Not like you can go "oops! can you turn off the vacuum stuck in my cooch real quick? thanks!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted January 18, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Right, so you should be allowed to choose what happens to other people? How would you like it if someone chose what happened to you, and happened to think guns were fun?Before anyone says it, I'm fully in support of the judicial system choosing what happens to convicted criminals, I just don't think death should be among those choices. Awfully permanent, you see, and mistakes will always happen. Perhaps more to the point, I am yet to see anyone justify why they should have the right to remove another's life. Life imprisonment is "someone choosing what happens to you". The convict is removed from society, but is now an increased burden to society. You seem to be completely ignoring the hypocrisy brought up as the original point....it's OKAY to kill an unborn fetus, not okay to kill the rapist? While I don't really support the death penalty, I can fully appreciate the reasoning for those who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tom_s252 Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 At least those people had choices. Abortion is murder of a helpless individual. Everything you're saying in the second para directly relates to the abortion issue as well. Not like you can go "oops! can you turn off the vacuum stuck in my cooch real quick? thanks!" I would contend that the difference is between a physically mature being capable feeling pain and being distressed at the thought of not continuing to exist, and a clump of cells incapable of experiencing anything. I'm in favour of continued research to find out where that ceases to be the case; at present, consensus seems to be 24-28 weeks; if it can suffer, I'm not keen on hurting or killing it. However, before that point (wherever science determines it to be), I have no ethical qualms with removing what is effectively a non-sentient growth. It has the potential to become a sentient being in the future, but it is not one yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 I would contend that the difference is between a physically mature being capable feeling pain and being distressed at the thought of not continuing to exist, and a clump of cells incapable of experiencing anything. I'm in favour of continued research to find out where that ceases to be the case; at present, consensus seems to be 24-28 weeks; if it can suffer, I'm not keen on hurting or killing it. However, before that point (wherever science determines it to be), I have no ethical qualms with removing what is effectively a non-sentient growth. It has the potential to become a sentient being in the future, but it is not one yet. Well that's why you're a Brit, and why you're wrong. What do you think is inside a woman? Some sort of lizard or frog-type thing, that "magically" transforms into a human the instant it leaves the womb, like I've heard argued here before? And your first point is even more of a reason to cause pain and distress to violent criminals. They did it on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tom_s252 Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Well that's why you're a Brit, and why you're wrong. What do you think is inside a woman? Some sort of lizard or frog-type thing, that "magically" transforms into a human the instant it leaves the womb, like I've heard argued here before?And your first point is even more of a reason to cause pain and distress to violent criminals. They did it on purpose. I am well aware of the biology involved, thanks. This is what makes me quite sure that there is a point in the development of a foetus before which it is incapable of sensing anything; you must realise that there is a point where the nervous system begins to function, where the brain stem is sufficiently developed to process this information, etc.? Unless you're going to argue from some sort of sanctity of life basis, I fail to see what the problem is. As for criminals being punished for wilful acts, I would contend that many have been punished for acts of negligence, crimes of passion or other instances where it is difficult to say that the crime was entirely premeditated and "on purpose". That said, there are plenty out there who have killed on purpose; I just don't think we should be doing any more killing in retribution. "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind", as a very wise man once said. Would you care to put an argument for the death penalty? Punishment? Deterrent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 I am well aware of the biology involved, thanks. This is what makes me quite sure that there is a point in the development of a foetus before which it is incapable of sensing anything; you must realise that there is a point where the nervous system begins to function, where the brain stem is sufficiently developed to process this information, etc.?Unless you're going to argue from some sort of sanctity of life basis, I fail to see what the problem is.As for criminals being punished for wilful acts, I would contend that many have been punished for acts of negligence, crimes of passion or other instances where it is difficult to say that the crime was entirely premeditated and "on purpose". That said, there are plenty out there who have killed on purpose; I just don't think we should be doing any more killing in retribution. "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind", as a very wise man once said. Would you care to put an argument for the death penalty? Punishment? Deterrent? Again, can you name me the exact time, date, and "transformation" of where this happens? I'd like to see it, thanks. The simple fact that you're arguing an unborn baby should be treated the same as a grown human adult shows where you're coming from, and that is quite far off base. Why not? What purpose does a murderer, rapist or child molester give to society by keeping them alive? If they're sitting in an air-conditioned/heated setup with a bunch of others who have zero respect for others, which is why they committed the acts in the first place, why would anyone in their right mind fund that? Are you going to take the tax burden on yourself, individually? The punishment should fit the crime. Repeat offenses happen b/c we're so lax on them in the first place, and they know they do a little time and get a free ride for a few years, and then are back on the streets to have at it again. Why don't you just take our child molesters and let 'em babysit your kids? I'll even pay shipping! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 ...VERY common amongst pro-abortion types... - georgestrings The term "pro-abortion" is VERY common amongst "anti-choice" types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tom_s252 Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Again, can you name me the exact time, date, and "transformation" of where this happens? I'd like to see it, thanks. The simple fact that you're arguing an unborn baby should be treated the same as a grown human adult shows where you're coming from, and that is quite far off base.Why not? What purpose does a murderer, rapist or child molester give to society by keeping them alive? If they're sitting in an air-conditioned/heated setup with a bunch of others who have zero respect for others, which is why they committed the acts in the first place, why would anyone in their right mind fund that? Are you going to take the tax burden on yourself, individually? The punishment should fit the crime. Repeat offenses happen b/c we're so lax on them in the first place, and they know they do a little time and get a free ride for a few years, and then are back on the streets to have at it again. Why don't you just take our child molesters and let 'em babysit your kids? I'll even pay shipping! I don't know the date of the "transformation", although there are probably doctors that do; it's their job, not mine. But my argument doesn't rest on that point being known absolutely at this time; I am saying that before that point, there is no awareness, no sentience and therefore no ethical stumbling block. I am not "arguing an unborn baby should be treated the same as a grown human adult", far from it. I am saying that anything that can value its own existence or can feel pain should not be harmed; it's called Utilitarianism. Your argument for the death penalty appears to be that you object to paying for prisons for murderers. If the bill was someone else's, would you keep them alive? If that is the case, you are simply telling the world your morals can be bought for the price of a few dollars a year. Regarding child molestor babysitting: I'm not condoning letting violent criminals loose on the streets. Lock them up, by all means, but don't kill them. To kill a criminal is to deny all hope of retribution, forgiveness, rehabilitation or change. Are you so pessimistic about the human race that you would deny someone that chance, even if it costs you a bit more in tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 I don't know the date of the "transformation", although there are probably doctors that do; it's their job, not mine. But my argument doesn't rest on that point being known absolutely at this time; I am saying that before that point, there is no awareness, no sentience and therefore no ethical stumbling block.I am not "arguing an unborn baby should be treated the same as a grown human adult", far from it. I am saying that anything that can value its own existence or can feel pain should not be harmed; it's called Utilitarianism.Your argument for the death penalty appears to be that you object to paying for prisons for murderers. If the bill was someone else's, would you keep them alive? If that is the case, you are simply telling the world your morals can be bought for the price of a few dollars a year. Regarding child molestor babysitting: I'm not condoning letting violent criminals loose on the streets. Lock them up, by all means, but don't kill them. To kill a criminal is to deny all hope of retribution, forgiveness, rehabilitation or change. Are you so pessimistic about the human race that you would deny someone that chance, even if it costs you a bit more in tax? Assuming there is such a thing as this "transformation", of course... And yes- I object very strongly to paying for prison for any violent criminals, not just murder. Rape and child molestation isn't any better in my book. If you're that pathetic, and force your will against that of another and rob them of their life or of their self-preservation, especially a minor, you should have your life forfeit. It's that easy. Any chance of "transformation" better happen quickly. You're also assuming that these adults are going to "transform" as well, which very rarely happens. Things in the vein of murder, rape and child molestation aren't "accidents", and are so hideous that you honestly shouldn't get "another shot", if you're that kind of scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jnewcomer Posted January 18, 2008 Members Share Posted January 18, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.