Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-02-19 20:33:16
13rin
Member
+977|6782

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

That'd be great.  In California that (abolishment of the death penalty) will never happen because the Prison Guards union is far too powerful to let any legislation detrimental to their bottom line pass.  We almost passed a proposition allocating $500 million a year minimum for the Department of Corrections   Also, states like Texas where vigilante justice and "sending a message" are still championed probably won't abolish the death penalty any time soon either, so looks like this (death penalty ending) is just a pipe dream for now.

LOL at pro-life/pro-death penalty people.
LOL at you equating unborn babies to hardend murders
Does it matter?
I didn't equate anything, I am pointing out that pro-lifers for the death penalty are actually pro-life and pro-death.  That makes me LOL.  Did I strike a nerve or something?
When you load buckshot expect a hit...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-02-19 20:38:51
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950
I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.

Can someone explain that to me?
2009-02-19 20:44:07
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6935|949

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.

Can someone explain that to me?
Because executing a prisoner is state-sponsored murder, whatever the person being executed did.
2009-02-19 20:52:12
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.

Can someone explain that to me?
Because executing a prisoner is state-sponsored murder, whatever the person being executed did.
If it were that simple there wouldn't be things like 1st 2nd 3rd degree and manslaughter because killing would simply be labeled murder.

It's not like taking life is black and white.
2009-02-19 21:03:04
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6935|949

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.

Can someone explain that to me?
Because executing a prisoner is state-sponsored murder, whatever the person being executed did.
If it were that simple there wouldn't be things like 1st 2nd 3rd degree and manslaughter because killing would simply be labeled murder.

It's not like taking life is black and white.
No it's not.  But killing = bad.  Personally I'm against killing, so I would be against the death penalty.  It's not up to me (or a jury of my peers) to decide that killing is ok.  If anything it would be up to the victim (or the victim's relatives), but vengeance is a powerful force too.
2009-02-19 21:33:12
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


Because executing a prisoner is state-sponsored murder, whatever the person being executed did.
If it were that simple there wouldn't be things like 1st 2nd 3rd degree and manslaughter because killing would simply be labeled murder.

It's not like taking life is black and white.
No it's not.  But killing = bad.  Personally I'm against killing, so I would be against the death penalty.  It's not up to me (or a jury of my peers) to decide that killing is ok.  If anything it would be up to the victim (or the victim's relatives), but vengeance is a powerful force too.
Killing = bad is just too simple of an answer. Early/human caused death = bad but killing isn't always murder. Manslaughter and execution aren't regarded as murder because of the circumstances.

I must say, your attitude seems very Jesus like.
2009-02-19 21:40:18
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6683|MN
Nope, most christians like the death penalty.  Weird huh?
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-02-19 21:46:32
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

LividBovine wrote:

Nope, most christians like the death penalty.  Weird huh?
Despite that I'd say Jesus was one of the most forgiving people I've read about and he wouldn't support the death penalty.
2009-02-19 21:58:54
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6852|San Diego, CA, USA

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Nope, most christians like the death penalty.  Weird huh?
Despite that I'd say Jesus was one of the most forgiving people I've read about and he wouldn't support the death penalty.
"God killed his only begotten son."
2009-02-19 22:01:32
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

Harmor wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Nope, most christians like the death penalty.  Weird huh?
Despite that I'd say Jesus was one of the most forgiving people I've read about and he wouldn't support the death penalty.
"God killed his only begotten son."
Gods a dick.
2009-02-19 22:06:58
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6935|949

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

If it were that simple there wouldn't be things like 1st 2nd 3rd degree and manslaughter because killing would simply be labeled murder.

It's not like taking life is black and white.
No it's not.  But killing = bad.  Personally I'm against killing, so I would be against the death penalty.  It's not up to me (or a jury of my peers) to decide that killing is ok.  If anything it would be up to the victim (or the victim's relatives), but vengeance is a powerful force too.
Killing = bad is just too simple of an answer. Early/human caused death = bad but killing isn't always murder. Manslaughter and execution aren't regarded as murder because of the circumstances.

I must say, your attitude seems very Jesus like.
Sorry; I guess I am a simpleton.  To me it is that simple - a no-brainer really.  I think we give out far too many "life" sentences too, if that makes sense.  I am an asshole with compassion and a flair for forgiveness.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-02-19 22:07:43)

2009-02-19 22:25:34
Warhammer
Member
+18|5984

Turquoise wrote:

Warhammer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


A better demonstration of the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement is how many pro-lifers are avidly against abortion but are also against spending more on orphanages and helping out single parents more (2 things that would be essential to dealing with an abortion ban).
Do you have facts supporting this? I am actually curious.
Well, it really comes down to common sense.

If you remove the option of abortion, unplanned pregnancies aren't going to stop.

Women will have to make one of 3 choices with an unplanned pregnancy:

1) raise the kid herself (with or without a partner/spouse)
2) put the kid up for adoption
3) get a back alley abortion

1 & 2 will be more common in their occurrence.  2 will go up considerably if abortion is banned.

As for the evidence of the pro-life movement being against spending more on orphanages....  well, ask the average religious conservative what their feelings on social programs are.

The point is...  inevitably, an abortion ban will lead to bigger government than we already have -- something that contradicts much of the conservative ideal.
If need be a social program for life a religious person would go for it. Take welfare off you get a budget for children in orphanage. You don't think a religious person would not help a parent if they really needed it? If the parent asked for it do you think a person would turn it down? There is already a waste in government programs that can be of tremendous help in funding an orphanage or single parents.
2009-02-19 22:32:29
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX
What costs?  I mean, if you want to save costs, fine.  A bullet is about $.75 nowadays.  Assuming it costs $35,000 a year to house an inmate (I made that number up for example purposes, don't ask for a source), that bullet costs as much as housing that inmate for 11.3 minutes.  I think that is quite a savings.
2009-02-19 22:48:45
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

imortal wrote:

What costs?  I mean, if you want to save costs, fine.  A bullet is about $.75 nowadays.  Assuming it costs $35,000 a year to house an inmate (I made that number up for example purposes, don't ask for a source), that bullet costs as much as housing that inmate for 11.3 minutes.  I think that is quite a savings.
It's legal fees. But then again it seems to me that a person serving a life sentence who didn't want to spend his life in jail would spend just as much time and money on the legal system as a guy who didn't want to be executed.

I guess people are ok with locking someone up for life as long as they feel pretty sure that the guy did it but to execute a guy we have to be super duper positive/no amount of evidence is ever good enough to convince some people.
2009-02-20 03:07:05
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Personally I'm against killing, so I would be against the death penalty.
Are you pro-choice?

People often point to the apparent (and non-existent) dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty, but rarely point to the equally apparent dichotomy between pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Killing an unborn baby is fine, but killing an adult who willfully chose to break the ultimate rule is bad.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-02-20 15:22:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.

Can someone explain that to me?
...because the state isn't flawless.

Sometimes, innocent people get convicted.  Appeals are there to make sure the person is actually guilty, and they are of the utmost importance when the penalty for guilt is death.

Obviously, a wrongful execution cannot be reversed.
2009-02-20 15:28:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Warhammer wrote:

If need be a social program for life a religious person would go for it. Take welfare off you get a budget for children in orphanage. You don't think a religious person would not help a parent if they really needed it? If the parent asked for it do you think a person would turn it down? There is already a waste in government programs that can be of tremendous help in funding an orphanage or single parents.
I'll put it this way.  I'd entertain the idea of banning abortion, if and ONLY if the same bill with the ban has all of the necessary social programs and adoption reforms included in it as well.

Without the right economic considerations, a ban simply isn't realistic.

But yes, I understand that many religious people would support the necessary reforms to accommodate a ban, but the problem is that many of them don't seem to believe reforms would be necessary.  At least, a lot of the pro-lifers I've spoken to don't have a very realistic view on it.

For those that do, I can respect their viewpoint, and I'd be willing to meet them in the middle if they could convince the rest of their movement of the necessity of these reforms.
2009-02-20 15:51:43
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6935|949

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Personally I'm against killing, so I would be against the death penalty.
Are you pro-choice?

People often point to the apparent (and non-existent) dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty, but rarely point to the equally apparent dichotomy between pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Killing an unborn baby is fine, but killing an adult who willfully chose to break the ultimate rule is bad.
I'm pro-life.

How is there a non-existant dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty?  There is a dichotomy, because you are inferring that an unborn baby is a life and it is not ok to take that life but that it is ok to take the life of a person because of their actions against society.  It doesn't matter how you rationalize the death penalty as ok, it's hypocritical.
2009-02-20 16:08:41
13rin
Member
+977|6782

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Personally I'm against killing, so I would be against the death penalty.
Are you pro-choice?

People often point to the apparent (and non-existent) dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty, but rarely point to the equally apparent dichotomy between pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Killing an unborn baby is fine, but killing an adult who willfully chose to break the ultimate rule is bad.
I'm pro-life.

How is there a non-existant dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty?  There is a dichotomy, because you are inferring that an unborn baby is a life and it is not ok to take that life but that it is ok to take the life of a person because of their actions against society.  It doesn't matter how you rationalize the death penalty as ok, it's hypocritical.
You a 'survival of the fittest' guy?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-02-20 16:42:20
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6935|949

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Are you pro-choice?

People often point to the apparent (and non-existent) dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty, but rarely point to the equally apparent dichotomy between pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Killing an unborn baby is fine, but killing an adult who willfully chose to break the ultimate rule is bad.
I'm pro-life.

How is there a non-existant dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty?  There is a dichotomy, because you are inferring that an unborn baby is a life and it is not ok to take that life but that it is ok to take the life of a person because of their actions against society.  It doesn't matter how you rationalize the death penalty as ok, it's hypocritical.
You a 'survival of the fittest' guy?
I don't know what you mean...The "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to the human race in the 21st century.
2009-02-20 17:48:24
13rin
Member
+977|6782

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


I'm pro-life.

How is there a non-existant dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty?  There is a dichotomy, because you are inferring that an unborn baby is a life and it is not ok to take that life but that it is ok to take the life of a person because of their actions against society.  It doesn't matter how you rationalize the death penalty as ok, it's hypocritical.
You a 'survival of the fittest' guy?
I don't know what you mean...The "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to the human race in the 21st century.
You sure it doesn't?  Darwinist/Creationist oriented are you..?.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-02-20 17:52:36
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6935|949

"Survival of the Fittest" was replaced by "whoever has the most money".

Yes I accept the scientific fact of evolution.  I tend to think life came from primordial goo, but I don't waste time trying to figure it out (just like I don't waste time thinking about creationist stories either).  I leave that for people with a bunch of letters after their name.
2009-02-20 21:14:50
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6714|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Personally I'm against killing, so I would be against the death penalty.
Are you pro-choice?

People often point to the apparent (and non-existent) dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty, but rarely point to the equally apparent dichotomy between pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Killing an unborn baby is fine, but killing an adult who willfully chose to break the ultimate rule is bad.
I'm pro-life.

How is there a non-existant dichotomy between pro-life and pro-death penalty?  There is a dichotomy, because you are inferring that an unborn baby is a life and it is not ok to take that life but that it is ok to take the life of a person because of their actions against society.  It doesn't matter how you rationalize the death penalty as ok, it's hypocritical.
There is no dichotomy there, because the unborn child cannot make a decision to take another life. The adult can. The unborn child does not know that breaking the ultimate rule has a price. The adult does.

One is about punishment for a choice willfully made. The other is about (normally...not always) convenience.

There is a world of difference.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-02-20 21:26:32
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

"Survival of the Fittest" was replaced by "whoever has the most money".
Same game, it is just the rules have changed as to what consitutes "the Fittest."
2009-02-20 23:23:32
13rin
Member
+977|6782

imortal wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

"Survival of the Fittest" was replaced by "whoever has the most money".
Same game, it is just the rules have changed as to what consitutes "the Fittest."
Nah.  Just trying to prove a point that the deviants are not the fittest in a 'civilized' society.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard