nevertheless, i'll "recuse" myself now ...[/QUOTE]
when you made the bigotted comment lumping all people who support capital punishment as pro death, you ad hominemed us. I understand on the left that isn't that big a deal. But intellectually speaking it's a fallacy that avoids arguments by labeling the arguerer with a "bad name" and discrediting them on the name's purpose, not their arguments or beliefs.
Don't sweat it, I'm used to the left pulling this. Since I'm one of those, you most certainly DID call me pro death. You played the "you people" card and I'm one of those people.
PRO DEATH means you promote death.
If a person is pro death, they would want to encourage deaths.
I'm acknowledging a person in for a lifer, on average kills 2.3 more people even while incarcerated.
A person left outside, free, who committed a capital crime is almost always a repeat offender, or their threshhold is moved to the point they COULD be for much less reason than the first time.
So to leave them alive, would promote death. THAT IS YOUR VENUE, not mine.
I promote life, by removing one that is a threat, like a cancer, to society, and sparing 2.3 more.
You need to check your logic, your ad hominems, and your denseness please.
Sigh, you probably don't.
Ahh, the poor limitations the left have, namely selective education, a nicer way of saying deliberate ignorance. :|
Only capital offenders who received a capital punishment are seperated out. OR someone who committed a capital offense while in prison. <<<< read that slowly <<<<
You wish to remove the capital offense, apparently, which would put the capital offenders in the general populace, causing "turf wars" and screwing up the 2.3 average. You would cause deaths, by all empirical history we have to date, and want to call me pro death. That's foolish. I can't believe that you really believe the crap you are saying. It's so shortsighted you MUSt be about to drop a "GOTCHA" in here somewhere.
1) I'm not judging anyone. That's above my pay grade.
I acknowledge the need for that crime's punishment.
Tell me which is it...
Taking a life is bad,
or not?
Your way takes 2.3 more lives than mine.
I'm a net 1.3 lives above your moral standard.
If you release the person and they take 1.3 more lives, that makes you promoting death, not me.
You are right, they are all just misunderstood. Like your pro-death stance. What a pee wee herman move, try to assign your offense to the others. No I'm not, That's YOU!!!!
The system is set up with a large time for appeals. Appeals are ruled unjust, and just. The system works. It's a lot less perfect than what you can propose. You are merely one more lemming parroting bad philosophy found only on the left.
you keep your humor, that's good. You are funnY!
:think: You must mean the weak capital punishment argument that you say is weak, over and over, but have yet to present convincing reason to prove it's weak, other than your emotional and ad hominal appeals. Because you've ONLY presented emotional arguments based on YOUR perception of Justice, and not bothered to justify them as superior, or worse than the status quo. Here lemme help. www.dictionary.com
Ahhh the selective education of the left again. Let me show yo uhow your Washington left politicos have turned you into a lemming, or a :sheep:, The clinton plan to invade, remember back when they were all on TV saying they needed to go Saddam was bad... Their plan was to pay for the war, by using their oil to pay for rebuilding etc...
During the BUSH run, they campaigned that was evil and it was only oil motivated. cough cough ACCCCCK patoohie. You don't connect those as issues. Is there a face with a white cane in the smilies??? someone get on that.
During the time BUSH was in office, and the end of Billy's term, the only people that profited from the OIL in IRAQ , was GERMANY, RUSSIA, FRANCE, the three who voted against the invasion. They were selling weapons for oil under the food for oil program. That's well documented to anyone that passed gas enough their head was free to look.
THE U.S. made no money from oil in Iraq, notice our debt was climbing because of the war?
Haliburton was the predecided company for this contingency of problems. The government has these little lists, if we face this, we use these guys because they are the best and here's why. if they can't these guys are next best and here's why. It's the same list Clinton had.
Your left won't tell you things like this. I'm sorry you are starved for information and fed sheep umm skubalon.
This whole post is made on a presumed lie. No one is clamouring for the death. There is no campaign. The OP asked what would you do. And people are honest and admitting. You won't admit to what you would do, you just bash folks. Let me declare for you, based on what you have shown us so far.
YOU would:
...allow him to take another 1.3 lifes in prison, OR allow him his freedom with counseling, so he could plan better and get away next time.
... Sign the death warrants for the 1.3 people knowing they were going to die.
... belittle the value of the lives of those lost, and that will be lost by your political decision.
I give up.
Another lie.
I wish you guys wouldn't do that. I mean you just look stupid when you do it. We are embarassed FOR YOU, and we know you aren't going to figure out you should be embarassed.
You said PRO DEATH, not people should be sentenced to death. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. You are proven to be the death promoter above. YES we feel sentencing them to death is just. We are not promoting deaths, or we'd let him free like you would. Once that threshold is crossed, ....
In the last dozen years the "center" has moved so far left, that anyone slightly left is historically far left. JFK would run under the republican party today, or would totally change the left. The difference in Him and Nixon's policies was minimal. That's how close it was back then.
A man of extremes? I did get a philosophy degree in Greece from the School named for and that taught the great philosophy of the great Greek thinker, Facetious. The school was located on an island off the north easter coast called Hyperbole. It's known for it's proximity to the Isle of Catharsis, where so many vacation to releive stress.
Only the moral deficient claim moral superiority. You pro death promoting ad hominem name changers.
No, I'm admitting captial murder is evil. And that a capital murder offender has crossed a threshhold and is inherently more likely to commit more deaths. And a murderer has removed the freedom infinitely more thoroughly than the govt can do, by removing their freedom to live.
This has to be posturing, your vocab insinuates you aren't this dense. Which if posturing makes you very dishonest intellectually, and if on accident, very unqualified to have this discussion.
There is a difference in capital crimes and killing someone. You argue the human life has value, and no one has the right to remove.
You are faced with a dilemma of needing to pass judgement on someone who took a life and will most likely take more.
If you release them in any of the ways we've discussed, the ODDS ARE they will take 2.3 more lives which you argue have value. Plus he's removed the freedom of the ones he has killed, permanently.
You seem to have a problem applying to HIM the offense he has given, and most likely will give again. BUT not only that, but you knowingly put him in a position to offend again. And you want to call this just?
If you were the judge and this guy killed my wife, I'd kill you first then the criminal. You both signed her death warrant.
NO ONE on here has acknowledged that. That's your strawman. When you present a real life issue I'll be glad to address them. I'm ignoring this whole part of your post based on a faulty premise.
I giggle, it's funny.:rotfl:
How can it be evil, if it's the law of the land, and it's exemplified in the Bible as well? I'm not sure your theological stand, but that has been a secular humanistic punishment for the crime since the early days of written record, long before the TEN Xian commandments even. You somehow think 12K years later, YOU seem to have the moral compass to be the first to get it right. :| Do you gag on all that hubris? errr www.dictionary.com
It's not about killing bad guys. Get an education, understand the words. Albeit the guys we admit have a right to lose their life are bad guys, we don't promote capital punishment for all legal offenders. You know that. you are either lying in your set up, or you are truly challenged in comprehension.
sigh, relax you are safe, no one is asking for your life.
Does your wife, partner, ?? know that if faced with a man threatening her life, you'd walk away and let him take it?
Base, like survival, protection of family, protection of those you govern over... yeah base emotions....
I don't like the idea of a man killing my wife, or children. You seem to have no issue with it. If we follow your words, you can't say you would defende her/them.
And capital murder is the work of Social Sophisticates. I get it. :rotfl:
That's exactly why I asked you to recuse. Your inherent bias, is thinking your judgement is superior to everyone elses, even God's and that you are qualified to make that call.
I bow to your superiority. But I cry for your family if ever threatened.
when you made the bigotted comment lumping all people who support capital punishment as pro death, you ad hominemed us. I understand on the left that isn't that big a deal. But intellectually speaking it's a fallacy that avoids arguments by labeling the arguerer with a "bad name" and discrediting them on the name's purpose, not their arguments or beliefs.
Don't sweat it, I'm used to the left pulling this. Since I'm one of those, you most certainly DID call me pro death. You played the "you people" card and I'm one of those people.
PRO DEATH means you promote death.
If a person is pro death, they would want to encourage deaths.
I'm acknowledging a person in for a lifer, on average kills 2.3 more people even while incarcerated.
A person left outside, free, who committed a capital crime is almost always a repeat offender, or their threshhold is moved to the point they COULD be for much less reason than the first time.
So to leave them alive, would promote death. THAT IS YOUR VENUE, not mine.
I promote life, by removing one that is a threat, like a cancer, to society, and sparing 2.3 more.
You need to check your logic, your ad hominems, and your denseness please.
Sigh, you probably don't.
Ahh, the poor limitations the left have, namely selective education, a nicer way of saying deliberate ignorance. :|
Only capital offenders who received a capital punishment are seperated out. OR someone who committed a capital offense while in prison. <<<< read that slowly <<<<
You wish to remove the capital offense, apparently, which would put the capital offenders in the general populace, causing "turf wars" and screwing up the 2.3 average. You would cause deaths, by all empirical history we have to date, and want to call me pro death. That's foolish. I can't believe that you really believe the crap you are saying. It's so shortsighted you MUSt be about to drop a "GOTCHA" in here somewhere.
1) I'm not judging anyone. That's above my pay grade.
I acknowledge the need for that crime's punishment.
Tell me which is it...
Taking a life is bad,
or not?
Your way takes 2.3 more lives than mine.
I'm a net 1.3 lives above your moral standard.
If you release the person and they take 1.3 more lives, that makes you promoting death, not me.
You are right, they are all just misunderstood. Like your pro-death stance. What a pee wee herman move, try to assign your offense to the others. No I'm not, That's YOU!!!!
The system is set up with a large time for appeals. Appeals are ruled unjust, and just. The system works. It's a lot less perfect than what you can propose. You are merely one more lemming parroting bad philosophy found only on the left.
you keep your humor, that's good. You are funnY!:think: You must mean the weak capital punishment argument that you say is weak, over and over, but have yet to present convincing reason to prove it's weak, other than your emotional and ad hominal appeals. Because you've ONLY presented emotional arguments based on YOUR perception of Justice, and not bothered to justify them as superior, or worse than the status quo. Here lemme help. www.dictionary.com
or the demonic horde of badness that needs to be invaded in spite of the weak weapons of mass destruction argument? ... quite a lucrative little invasion tho for the oil producers ... wasnt georgy b an oil guy? ... sorry, u diverged first ...
Ahhh the selective education of the left again. Let me show yo uhow your Washington left politicos have turned you into a lemming, or a :sheep:, The clinton plan to invade, remember back when they were all on TV saying they needed to go Saddam was bad... Their plan was to pay for the war, by using their oil to pay for rebuilding etc...
During the BUSH run, they campaigned that was evil and it was only oil motivated. cough cough ACCCCCK patoohie. You don't connect those as issues. Is there a face with a white cane in the smilies??? someone get on that.
During the time BUSH was in office, and the end of Billy's term, the only people that profited from the OIL in IRAQ , was GERMANY, RUSSIA, FRANCE, the three who voted against the invasion. They were selling weapons for oil under the food for oil program. That's well documented to anyone that passed gas enough their head was free to look.
THE U.S. made no money from oil in Iraq, notice our debt was climbing because of the war?
Haliburton was the predecided company for this contingency of problems. The government has these little lists, if we face this, we use these guys because they are the best and here's why. if they can't these guys are next best and here's why. It's the same list Clinton had.
Your left won't tell you things like this. I'm sorry you are starved for information and fed sheep umm skubalon.
This whole post is made on a presumed lie. No one is clamouring for the death. There is no campaign. The OP asked what would you do. And people are honest and admitting. You won't admit to what you would do, you just bash folks. Let me declare for you, based on what you have shown us so far.
YOU would:
...allow him to take another 1.3 lifes in prison, OR allow him his freedom with counseling, so he could plan better and get away next time.
... Sign the death warrants for the 1.3 people knowing they were going to die.
... belittle the value of the lives of those lost, and that will be lost by your political decision.
I give up.
Another lie.
I wish you guys wouldn't do that. I mean you just look stupid when you do it. We are embarassed FOR YOU, and we know you aren't going to figure out you should be embarassed.
You said PRO DEATH, not people should be sentenced to death. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. You are proven to be the death promoter above. YES we feel sentencing them to death is just. We are not promoting deaths, or we'd let him free like you would. Once that threshold is crossed, ....
In the last dozen years the "center" has moved so far left, that anyone slightly left is historically far left. JFK would run under the republican party today, or would totally change the left. The difference in Him and Nixon's policies was minimal. That's how close it was back then.
A man of extremes? I did get a philosophy degree in Greece from the School named for and that taught the great philosophy of the great Greek thinker, Facetious. The school was located on an island off the north easter coast called Hyperbole. It's known for it's proximity to the Isle of Catharsis, where so many vacation to releive stress.
Only the moral deficient claim moral superiority. You pro death promoting ad hominem name changers.
No, I'm admitting captial murder is evil. And that a capital murder offender has crossed a threshhold and is inherently more likely to commit more deaths. And a murderer has removed the freedom infinitely more thoroughly than the govt can do, by removing their freedom to live.
This has to be posturing, your vocab insinuates you aren't this dense. Which if posturing makes you very dishonest intellectually, and if on accident, very unqualified to have this discussion.
There is a difference in capital crimes and killing someone. You argue the human life has value, and no one has the right to remove.
You are faced with a dilemma of needing to pass judgement on someone who took a life and will most likely take more.
If you release them in any of the ways we've discussed, the ODDS ARE they will take 2.3 more lives which you argue have value. Plus he's removed the freedom of the ones he has killed, permanently.
You seem to have a problem applying to HIM the offense he has given, and most likely will give again. BUT not only that, but you knowingly put him in a position to offend again. And you want to call this just?
If you were the judge and this guy killed my wife, I'd kill you first then the criminal. You both signed her death warrant.
NO ONE on here has acknowledged that. That's your strawman. When you present a real life issue I'll be glad to address them. I'm ignoring this whole part of your post based on a faulty premise.
I giggle, it's funny.:rotfl:
How can it be evil, if it's the law of the land, and it's exemplified in the Bible as well? I'm not sure your theological stand, but that has been a secular humanistic punishment for the crime since the early days of written record, long before the TEN Xian commandments even. You somehow think 12K years later, YOU seem to have the moral compass to be the first to get it right. :| Do you gag on all that hubris? errr www.dictionary.com
It's not about killing bad guys. Get an education, understand the words. Albeit the guys we admit have a right to lose their life are bad guys, we don't promote capital punishment for all legal offenders. You know that. you are either lying in your set up, or you are truly challenged in comprehension.
sigh, relax you are safe, no one is asking for your life.
Well, yeah hitler wouldn't fit, good example. You would let him live to offend again. Mostly I would say those that don't fit are capital offenders that show they hold no value for human life, and would be able to take one with little inhibition or anguish. If you want them to live, build a halfway house they can't escape from and YOU can live with them.
Does your wife, partner, ?? know that if faced with a man threatening her life, you'd walk away and let him take it?
Base, like survival, protection of family, protection of those you govern over... yeah base emotions....
I don't like the idea of a man killing my wife, or children. You seem to have no issue with it. If we follow your words, you can't say you would defende her/them.
And capital murder is the work of Social Sophisticates.
I get it. :rotfl:That's exactly why I asked you to recuse. Your inherent bias, is thinking your judgement is superior to everyone elses, even God's and that you are qualified to make that call.
I bow to your superiority. But I cry for your family if ever threatened.