Youd think all these libs wanting to ban execution would also be screaming to end late term abortions too, but mums the word on that.

Hell yes as long as the mother isnt in danger. disgusting if you ask me. but iam not all that liberal so thats probably why i feel this way

Who in gods name is talking about an individual. What I feel is morally wrong or right has jack to do with this.

From Wikepidia A society is a group of people that share a common interest. For the topic if I think humping the goat next store is wrong and you hump that goat I will not be in your social group. If the majority of society share this idea and we dont like you humping that goat we will inact a law designed to inhibit you from humping the goat

Look they are not seemless nor do they instanisouly change to meet changing view points nor does an indvidual action begit one or the other. However when laws are created they reflect the moral principles of there creators that is a fact.

I'm going to assume this is Dyshade speak for, "Yes, you're right, I just made that number up."

It would be easier to forgive your lack of anything resembling an argument if you did not still, somehow, try to push your case.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is a terrible idea to make it easy for the government to kill people. The result can only ever be corruption and tyranny.

Except, I assume you mean, for those who take the life of those who took life in the first place.

Besides the lack of logical support behind this statement, sans the discovery of real life Dementors I think you're pretty boned on this anyway. Look up some last testaments from those put to death by the state. It's actually shocking to me how hopeful most of them are.

Should there be the slightest possibility that they will commit murder in jail?

Certainly this is an argument for reform of the jail system, which currently condones indirectly murderous and criminal activities between inmates. Certainly there should be a crackdown on jail reform that prevents inmates from being able to attack and rape and kill one another.

But where, from here, does it follow that the best alternative is to kill them? Decades spent in hard labor helps society; the death penalty provides only revenge.

Yeah, I am against abortions too as a matter of fact.

But that's because I actually apply my conservative principles in a logical and consistent manner.

You know.


Instead of just thinking whatever Anne Coulter tells me to think.

I realize now that you do not understand nor will you ever.

The death penalty provides reassurance that the convicted murderer will never again commit a similar atrocity. What part of that do you not comprehend. It is pretty simple logic.

You are quite incorrect. You need to really check into where our modern laws came from. You will find that thier inception did not have a thing to do with morality.

Ohhhhh burn.....

No. Your logic is flawed. Abortions are good for population control. Nor are you conservative. You are a liberal through and through. I agree with some liberal logic myself. But I do not agree with abolishing the death penalty(It is not revenge and it is simple minded to think that) nor with abolishing abortions(anything which helps to prevent global overpopulation is good) and I do not like anyone interfering with a citizens right to carry arms(defense of oneself should never be taken away). Amongst other things.

It is not easy for the government to kill anyone. Nowhere did I ever say that we should make it easier. I just stated that we need the death penalty in order to execute murderers. But you so love to put words in others mouths and berate them for those made up words.

You can reform the hell out of the jail system and murderers unless locked away in a small cell with noone else 24 hours a day will still have times where they can murder.

Holy fucking shit I agree with synikul on something.

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean I don't understand you. I could stay in my house and insure that I never get into a car crash. Or I could use cars, since they will vastly improve the quality of my life, and then simply take all the safety steps that are reasonable. There's a cost and benefit analysis necessary here, Dyshade. Simply puffing up your cheeks and stamping your feet won't suffice as an argument.



No, see, I support an individual's right to life and liberty, and I think every step should be taken to protect these rights, which includes allowing citizens to carry arms (nice random accusation, I guess?) and not allowing the government to kill people or condone killing people. And you know, treating people as human beings, not as cattle who need population control.

You said it should be much faster and much cheaper and require much less prosecution. If you have a better definition of "easier", I've never heard it. Simply because you advocate 1 and 1 and fail to understand what 2 is, does not mean that my berating you for 2 is "putting words in your mouth", anymore than if you were advocating jumping off of bridges and I berated you for wanting to increase falling deaths.

And if we don't keep our children in padded cells and educate them there and never let them near sharp or hot objects, some kids are going to die or get horribly mutilated in accidents. Yet no serious human being advocates keeping our kids in padded cells. Why? Oh, lots of reasons. You need to deal in reasonable likelihoods.

Do tell Dyshade it is easy tell me that I am wrong but in so saying you have placed on yourself the burden of proof. I egearly await such proof. Dont forget that shared moral principles help keep the peace in society exactly how would you enforce a law where the majority of the populace is morally opposed to the law?

I am not doing so. I merely promote the death penalty. I have been doing so this entire time. You keep saying my arguments are vapid and ridiculous. You also keep putting words in my mouth; OR; perhaps you just keep taking my ideas out of context. Using cars and staying in your house are vastly different ideals. You cannot compare the two ideals in any way to a man who commits murder. You are making murder out to be a picnic with the family. It is clearly a more dangerous ideal than sitting in your house to avoid getting hurt. A murderer will end another life.
Getting hit by a car is an accident. Am I supposed to advocate shooting the car? No. That would be ridiculous, as is the comparison.
Strange. I do not advocate the government randomly killing folks. I do advocate the government protecting the populace from monsters who perform seemingly random acts of violence or just murder others. Those who commit violence should be jailed and those who murder should be killed. This does not give the government the abililty to murder; it gives the government the ability to protect its populace, society, from murderers. Nor do I disagree with your statement about life and liberty. People are human beings and I seem to miss where I said otherwise.



You still did it. You said x was y when clearly x was x.



A reasonable certainty is that if you imprison a man for life because they murdered another they will sooner or later murder again.

If you execute them when they are found guilty they will never murder again.

I really do not know how much simpler it would be to put it.

"" Among varied and sophisticated social phenomena, morals and law, which serve as the norms of human behavior, are closely related yet distinct. To neglect either their relatedness or their dis-tinction would effect the progress of humankind and social develop-ment. Therefore the problem of the relationship between morals and law has long been a focus of research in moral and legal philo-sophy. ""

Fu Jizong

You are morally opposed to the Death Penalty and yet it is Law.

"To neglect either their relatedness" the aspect of creation

"Distinction" enforcement

"You" back to the individual again. Is it a federal law? Or is it a state law? is it legal in all states? I am also not opposed morally to the death penalty, I consider the penalty a waste of time and a burden to the social consceince of the society, however the execution of a prisoner like Saddam for example makes sense in that he can have wide sweeping influence on the outside world.

Haha. No. They are distinct and seperate. Morals are seperate from laws. You know that. They may well closely relate to each other yet they are also quite seperate. A fine paradox yet one which defines both unto themselves. Law did not birth from morals nor did morals birth from law. Our morals can easily conflict with laws as the example I provided defines. As a matter fo fact this happens quite often. Yet for the "good of society" we keep those laws in place irregardless of personal moral feelings.

Nice, right?

You continue to confuse a society with an individual. If this is the juxtaposition of your argument then there really is nothing left to say. Most assuredly an INVIDUALS moral compass may conflict with that of the law (see goat above) and is why laws exist in the first place. However the shared morality of a society (this being the majoirty becuase the miniroty wont mean sheot unless the majority allow them to) will not conflict with the law and if it does the law usally does not last long (and why a conflict would ever exist? because the moral basis for that law has changed prior to the law being changed).