Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

Who you voting for, nucka?

  • McKinney/Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Keyes/Rohrbough (AIP)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jay/Knapp (Boston Tea)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Amondson/Pletten (Prohibition)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Weill/McEnulty (Reform)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • La Riva/Puryear (Socialism and Liberation)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68
Two wrongs don't make a right...

Y'know, repeating cute slogans your mother taught you when you were 4 years old doesn't really go over well in serious ethical debate. Moreover, I don't think you're going to convince somebody who disagrees with you that way since they, ex hypothesi, regard the sorts of cases under consideration as instances of justified killing. You can't just say something like 'you're advocating exactly the same thing that you condemn', since there are, at least from their point of view, morally relevant differences at play here.
 
i don't mind if obama wins but i'm not going to vote for him and know that i supported his shitty socialist tax policies thats for sure.

Yes, god forbid we do anything about the ridiculous inequality of wealth in the U.S., which is reported to be the highest in the developed world as well as the fastest growing.
 
i'm not even going to get into the debate, you can all vote obama if you want, he's going to win anyway. his socialist tax policy really isn't the way to go though, i'd be all for voting for him if it wasn't for that and i really do strongly believe that there should be more 3rd party involvement, right now they have no chance of winning but if they were more mainstream then someday maybe they could have a chance instead of being forced to choose between 2.
 
Y'know, repeating cute slogans your mother taught you when you were 4 years old doesn't really go over well in serious ethical debate. Moreover, I don't think you're going to convince somebody who disagrees with you that way since they, ex hypothesi, regard the sorts of cases under consideration as instances of justified killing. You can't just say something like 'you're advocating exactly the same thing that you condemn', since there are, at least from their point of view, morally relevant differences at play here.
ummm no... as much as you think only books from school and sayings from said books matters it's not the only source for material... even though what I said is construed as a "cute slogan" by you and others... it holds truth... if not then kindly show why it doesn't... if someone rapes my gf so i rape his gf how is either one right? ... same goes with a murderer and the death penalty... all it is, is an eye for an eye BS and you know it... justice and revenge are not one in the same... if it were we wouldn't bother with laws and just have vigilantism... and chaos... killing is never justified no matter who does it except for in the case of self defense of one's life... your taking a human life any way you look at it and that makes you no different... simple as that...
 
Oh hey, a blanket generalisation.

If used properly, the death penalty can be effective in taking out murderers who are likely to commit further murders, thus reducing the overall murder rate (DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying our current system achieves this so don't go ranting about it).
Good thing you put the disclaimer because you know it doesn't reduce the murder rate... and never will... that is just an excuse by the right wing that they have never proven...

Of course, many of the people who advocate it really are just looking for a means of taking out revenge on murderers, which is fucked-up and morally primitive.
no shit... i pretty much said that...
 
i'm not even going to get into the debate, you can all vote obama if you want, he's going to win anyway. his socialist tax policy really isn't the way to go though, i'd be all for voting for him if it wasn't for that and i really do strongly believe that there should be more 3rd party involvement, right now they have no chance of winning but if they were more mainstream then someday maybe they could have a chance instead of being forced to choose between 2.

If you're not going to get into the debate, then don't make empty claims that Obama's tax policy "isn't the way to go", since the extraordinary inequality of income in the U.S. indicates quite the contrary.

Good thing you put the disclaimer because you know it doesn't reduce the murder rate... and never will... that is just an excuse by the right wing that they have never proven...

Wrong. Also, it doesn't have to be "proven" that executions lower the murder rate in order for it to be clearly a good idea in some cases. You don't want convicted mass murderers, terrorists, spies and traitors to be left alive to cause more death and destruction. By your logic, we should just let rogue nations pursue agendas to nuke us simply because we can't "prove" that attacking them first is going to save lives overall.
 
if someone rapes my gf so i rape his gf how is either one right? ... same goes with a murderer and the death penalty... all it is, is an eye for an eye BS and you know it...

That's a terrible analogy. Nobody who advocates the idea of retributive justice would suggest that what you're describing above would be justified.

justice and revenge are not one in the same...

Uhhh, well I thought it was pretty obvious that justice and revenge aren't one and the same thing, and I don't even know of anybody who would claim otherwise. Anyway, virtually any form of punishment can be interpreted as revenge. The death penalty isn't special in that regard.

if it were we wouldn't bother with laws and just have vigilantism... and chaos...

Really? Where are you getting that idea?

killing is never justified no matter who does it except for in the case of self defense of one's life...

Why?

your taking a human life any way you look at it and that makes you no different... simple as that...

Really? I think an advocate of the death penalty would disagree on precisely this point. The two cases, i.e. flat out murder on the one hand, and retributive justice on the other, are clearly not the same! Isn't this obvious? Such a person would maintain that what the criminal did justifies killing them. You cannot simply say that these cases are the same, because they're not. You need to show why the difference doesn't make a moral difference.

At any rate, when I first responded to you I wasn't arguing for the death penalty, and I have little interest in arguing for it now. I was simply pointing out that your reply was dialectically ineffective. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully.
 
I bet he hired a hitman to take her out just to win some last-minute sympathy points before the election.

Indeed. It's all part of his evil plan to make everyone love him, then turn the USA into a socialist regime. AND EVERYONE IS FALLING FOR IT OMG HES AN ARAB
 
no... wyatt earp wannabe...

Sorry, that avatar isn't from "Tombstone". :Smug:

Laws and Penalties for breaking those laws are not "revenge". Revenge would be pure "vigilante justice". The death penalty would be considered however, "eye for an eye" which would be a huge deterrent to crime compared to our current system, and much more financially responsible.

Your rape analogy is beyond retarded. The woman raped was the one directly [wronged], her "boyfriend" has nothing to do with it, and neither does the rapists "GF". Try again.

Anybody who supports the death penalty over life imprisonment is stupid.

Anyone would would prefer to pay a murderers room and board for the rest of his life (no matter how spartan it may be), versus execution, is stupid.

Funny how it's the same people who'd rather build more prisons than schools.

:rolleyes: I'd love to see the evidence for that.
 
Printelect---I-Voted-Today.gif
 
Sorry, that avatar isn't from "Tombstone". :Smug:

Laws and Penalties for breaking those laws are not "revenge". Revenge would be pure "vigilante justice". The death penalty would be considered however, "eye for an eye" which would be a huge deterrent to crime compared to our current system, and much more financially responsible.

Your rape analogy is beyond retarded. The woman raped was the one directly [wronged], her "boyfriend" has nothing to do with it, and neither does the rapists "GF". Try again.



Anyone would would prefer to pay a murderers room and board for the rest of his life (no matter how spartan it may be), versus execution, is stupid.



:rolleyes: I'd love to see the evidence for that.

1) Capital punishment has been demonstrably shown to have no correlation at all between it and lower rates of crime.

2) It costs the taxpayer more to execute a man than it does to keep him behind bars for life.