so, who wants to see Tookie get nuked?

[neal]

quotes are best used out of context.

 

[Hell Mike]

LOL @ raising a child without the blessing of God almighty

 

[Crimson Velvet]

Bah, abortions are sweet if you ask me.

I've knocked my fiancée up twice, in spite of her having been on the pill. She got an abortion both times, and that was followed by me rejoicing. Then she just got one of those spirals, and there's been no accidents since.

My point is: ... Hmm... Not sure, really, but I sure am glad for abortions!

 

[Nate The Great]

It is interesting that conservatives are for the death penalty but against abortion, and liberals are against the death penalty but for abortion.

As far as abortion is concerned, using the excuse that it's the woman's body, and she can do what she wants, is kind of stupid. The fetus inside her still shows every scientific sign of being a human life. So if we use that excuse, one siamese twin should be able to legally murder his/her twin.

 

[General Zod]

funny you mention abortion, as the number of people that favor the death penalty and are against abortion is high.

I'm actually pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

I've heard the whole "the state shouldn't be allowed to put people death" arguement, and it doesn't hold water. Unless you want to argue that the state shouldn't be allowed to punish people at all, how can you argue that the state shouldn't be allowed to execute people? How is allowing the state to sentence citizens to a lifetime of being beaten and sodomized better?

Zod

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

The key to the equation is conciousness I believe. When something becomes concious of its exsistence it becomes human. So at what point does a fetus gain concious of its own exsistence?

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

I'm actually pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

I've heard the whole "the state shouldn't be allowed to put people death" arguement, and it doesn't hold water. Unless you want to argue that the state shouldn't be allowed to punish people at all, how can you argue that the state shouldn't be allowed to execute people? How is allowing the state to sentence citizens to a lifetime of being beaten and sodomized better?

Zod

For some its because the power of granting life and death has greater meaning than to others. Not to generalize here but some people hold death in a higher reagrd than others, not just pro-life christians. Then again some people would stab the guy snoring next to them on the bus if it were legal. I'd be lying if I said I never felt someone deserved to die for an act or whatnot they had done. Do I agree with the Death Penalty though? Not sure myself.

 

[General Zod]

Do I agree with the Death Penalty though? Not sure myself.

Am I thrilled with the concept? No. Ideally, people wouldn't need to die. Unfortunately, some do. Murders, rapists, child molesters... kill'em all.

Zod

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

I love how people equate abortion to the death penalty.

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

Am I thrilled with the concept? No. Ideally, people wouldn't need to die. Unfortunately, some do. Murders, rapists, child molesters... kill'em all.

Zod

True, most people dont enthusiastically pull the plug on anyones life. It boils down to personal morals really.

 

[KILL TULLY]

You guys sound like 12 year old school girls. As usual.

 

[lizard]

Nad:

"Die, Hamilton, you fuxxxor!"

 

[grazim]

How is allowing the state to sentence citizens to a lifetime of being beaten and sodomized better?

The state doesn't have the right to sanction the rape and torture of inmates, either. Our prison system isn't too great, to say the least. Could it be a lot worse? Hell yes. Could it be a lot better? Hell yes.

I've heard the whole "the state shouldn't be allowed to put people death" arguement, and it doesn't hold water. Unless you want to argue that the state shouldn't be allowed to punish people at all, how can you argue that the state shouldn't be allowed to execute people?

When you really get down to it, the state shouldn't have the right to do anything. It's a complete artifice, brought into being for the sole purpose of enforcing social stratification. I know that sounds like a bunch of paranoid bullshit, but it's the truth and it's anthropologically supported. States have no moral foundations whatsoever. However, we obviously have far too many people on this planet for any kind of truly egalitarian societies to work, so states are what we are stuck with.

Since we're stuck living in a world of states, we are going to have to make compromises. Our right to live if we choose to do so should be pretty fucking far up there on our list of things to protect. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that's one of the most important things to have on the right side of it. Sure, this doesn't 'hold water' because it's a compromise, but in the interest of practicality we have to take what we can get.

Of course, I hope you understand that this has nothing to do with what I think about actual morality. This is about the rights of states or lack thereof, and that is the area into which the death penalty falls.

EDIT: Also, realize that your viewpoint can be drawn out to extremes as well. If the state should have the power to decide life and death, what powers should it not have? If you're going to place that much faith in the moral fidelity of the state, why not follow through and grant it absolute power over every aspect of your life?

 

[General Zod]

You guys sound like 12 year old school girls. As usual.

LOL. I hope you at least recognize the irony of pointing out the forum's (as you see it) childish behavior with name calling.

Zod

 

[NAD]

Nad:

"Die, Hamilton, you fuxxxor!"

hahaha

 

[MajestikMøøse]

The state doesn't have the right to sanction the rape and torture of inmates, either. Our prison system isn't too great, to say the least. Could it be a lot worse? Hell yes. Could it be a lot better? Hell yes.

When you really get down to it, the state shouldn't have the right to do anything. It's a complete artifice, brought into being for the sole purpose of enforcing social stratification. I know that sounds like a bunch of paranoid bullshit, but it's the truth and it's anthropologically supported. States have no moral foundations whatsoever. However, we obviously have far too many people on this planet for any kind of truly egalitarian societies to work, so states are what we are stuck with.

Since we're stuck living in a world of states, we are going to have to make compromises. Our right to live if we choose to do so should be pretty fucking far up there on our list of things to protect. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that's one of the most important things to have on the right side of it. Sure, this doesn't 'hold water' because it's a compromise, but in the interest of practicality we have to take what we can get.

Of course, I hope you understand that this has nothing to do with what I think about actual morality. This is about the rights of states or lack thereof, and that is the area into which the death penalty falls.

EDIT: Also, realize that your viewpoint can be drawn out to extremes as well. If the state should have the power to decide life and death, what powers should it not have? If you're going to place that much faith in the moral fidelity of the state, why not follow through and grant it absolute power over every aspect of your life?

Excellent post.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

The state doesn't have the right to sanction the rape and torture of inmates, either. Our prison system isn't too great, to say the least. Could it be a lot worse? Hell yes. Could it be a lot better? Hell yes.



When you really get down to it, the state shouldn't have the right to do anything. It's a complete artifice, brought into being for the sole purpose of enforcing social stratification. I know that sounds like a bunch of paranoid bullshit, but it's the truth and it's anthropologically supported. States have no moral foundations whatsoever. However, we obviously have far too many people on this planet for any kind of truly egalitarian societies to work, so states are what we are stuck with.

Since we're stuck living in a world of states, we are going to have to make compromises. Our right to live if we choose to do so should be pretty fucking far up there on our list of things to protect. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that's one of the most important things to have on the right side of it. Sure, this doesn't 'hold water' because it's a compromise, but in the interest of practicality we have to take what we can get.

Of course, I hope you understand that this has nothing to do with what I think about actual morality. This is about the rights of states or lack thereof, and that is the area into which the death penalty falls.

EDIT: Also, realize that your viewpoint can be drawn out to extremes as well. If the state should have the power to decide life and death, what powers should it not have? If you're going to place that much faith in the moral fidelity of the state, why not follow through and grant it absolute power over every aspect of your life?

Man, you gotta love us UNC students!

 

[Erik]

Excellent post.

I concur

 

[neal]

Nad:

"Die, Hamilton, you fuxxxor!"

i thought you were talking about this burr:

 

[E-bortion]

Who can we get on the case?
We need perry mason
Someone to put you in place
Calling perry mason again, again