Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

[King Richard]

heh

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

CLASSICK.

"as a catholic i don't think its write"!!!!

 

[The Ozzman]

I wonder what Arghoslent did last night while they were watching the results

 

[King Richard]

Probably committed suicide.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The main guy in the band supports Obama actually.

edit:

On the contrary, this country knows its current unenviable position because the whites here are so pathetic. Our scholastic performance is below average, our president is a cowboy buffoon, the value of the dollar is laughable, we are in a recession, culture is a foreign concept, foreign policy is an afterthought, we throw billions of dollars at fighting an immortal and intangible concept in the Middle East, and all this as the country is run by whites that were elected by whites. White power? I think not. In fact, the best thing for this country would be for a certain non-white Democratic candidate to win the presidency (and yes, to point out the obvious, he is a very impressive, accomplished man, not the ’simian abomination’ referenced above; people should be more discerning when interpreting blanket statements; a country full of men like him would be a far worthier country than one crammed full of corpulent white trash rednecks). But all this just makes for less interesting song material, hence the focus on historical intrigues.

 

[The Ozzman]

Aaaaaaaaaand Obama hires a Jew to be his Chief of Staff!

 

[skeptik]

@Dodens : On the death penalty, you still didn't get the fucking point. Your whole arguement was extremely fraught with assumptions. Not to mention your totally asinine stance on rehabilitation vs punishment. I know you are smarter than that which is why especially the last item amazes me. Obviously you have no concept of justice.

My argument is "fraught with assumptions", yet you continue to assume that the death penalty effectively deters criminals, even though all the evidence that we actually do have, conclusive or not, suggests that it isn't. Well done on that one. As far as my "totally asinine" stance on rehabilitation, you're going to have to actually defend that remark if you don't want to look stupid. Obviously you have no definition of justice. Justice does not equate with punishment for wrongdoing. This is apparently your understanding of justice, and it's laughably shortsighted and inaccurate. The government is not in the business of retribution, and if you think that a process of rehabilitation is not within the realm of justice, then perhaps you should do some research on the matter. Rehabilitation is unquestionably in the best interest of society as a whole. If recidvism is as important an issue as you attempt to imply, then it would be in your best inferest to look into rehabilitation over punishment. When a prisoner is released from prison, would you rather it be because his arbitrarily determined sentence has expired, or because he no longer possesses the state of mind which is conducive to criminal activity? If you think otherwise, explain yourself, don't just throw out ad hominems like a 7 year old who was just told that his favorite cartoon is gay, to which he responds "you're a doodie head." Do not get into an argument if you don't have the capacity to defend yourself.

 

[The Ozzman]

What about those who have attempted rehabilitation multiple times with no success?

 

[skeptik]

Then they stay locked up forever. I don't think a person who has showed no signs of rehabilitating a mindset so utterly conducive to criminal activity should be allowed back into society.

 

[Dak]

Justice does not equate with punishment for wrongdoing

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: \ˈjəs-təs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French justise, from Latin justitia, from justus
Date: 12th century
1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b: judge c: the administration of law ; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c: the quality of conforming to law
3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason :

Sir you continue to dig a hole. Honestly I really don't care whether the death penalty is more or less of a deterrent, although if you base your arguement on deterrence on the statistics provided, you should review this: Correlation/Causation . Justice is the issue here, and yes that is governments responsibility.

There is nothing shortsited about restitution and punishment. You ignore that rehabilitation rarely occurs and the barrel of bad apples analogy applies here. Bottom line is crime has to = punishment.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[skeptik]

Sir you continue to dig a hole. Honestly I really don't care whether the death penalty is more or less of a deterrent, although if you base your arguement on deterrence on the statistics provided, you should review this: Correlation/Causation . Justice is the issue here, and yes that is governments responsibility.

There is nothing shortsited about restitution and punishment. You ignore that rehabilitation rarely occurs and the barrel of bad apples analogy applies here. Bottom line is crime has to = punishment.

God damnit, you are fucking stupid.

Read my statement again. "Justice does not equate with punishment for wrongdoing." I did not say that punishment for wrongdoing is not part of what most generally conceive of as justice, and to paint my statement as otherwise is misleading at best. Justice does not equate with punishment. Justice goes far beyond something so banal. The two are interrelated (though not necessarily), but they are hardly the synonyms that you pretend that they are.

It is also completely and utterly laughable that you would bring up the correlation versus causation distinction in this case, for three reasons. The first reason is that you assume that I'm not already intimately familiar with it, and there has been nothing to suggest that I'm not. The second reason is that it's well known that such studies as this never have and never claim to have absolute causational proof, which is why they always say things such as "our research indicates" or "according to our data it appears as though..." There is no definitively provable means of causationally determining a link between the death penalty and deterrence, one way or the other. And everybody already knows this. Finally, the third reason is that this correlation/causation distinction is the one that you are supposed to make, since you are the one defending the positive claim that x results in y. Bringing up the distinction only further demonstrates the frailty of your claim, because not only do you have no defitinitive evidence to suggest a causational relation between the death penalty and deterrence (which is impossible), but you don't even have anything to base your argument on at all that even correlates the death penalty with deterrence. Realize, sir, that your argument is dead, and you helped kill it by pointing out the droll distinction between causation and correlation that everything 3rd grader knows.

Once again, justice does not equal punishment. There is so much more to justice than you clearly realize. Look up restorative justice, for instance. Retributive justice is only one facet of justice, and from what I can garner, it has not served our best interests as a country, and trying something different can only help.

You ignore that we don't really have much in the way of rehabilitation. If you think that pretty much anything that we have in place now is the kind of rehabilitation that I'm talking about, then no wonder you're so convinced that it wouldn't work. What I'm talking about, which I know will never happen, requires a complete overhaul of the entire prison system, entirely changing the way that everything works fundamentally. Our focus is on punishment; we should be focusing on something more productive. If you really want to use that stupid fucking bad apple analogy, all I have to do is pull the equally stupid fucking claim that you made regarding the evidence that I provided that suggests that capital punishment and deterrence are not correlated. You said that "this logic doesn't fly" because the death penalty doesn't apply to all cases. Well, using your shitty logic here, your logic "doesn't fly" because rehabilitation doesn't apply to all cases. I hope this demonstrates how stupid your earlier claim actually was.

 

[Dak]

I am all for restorative justice for crimes where restitution can be made. But we are talking about murder here, and you can't bring a person back or pay any amount to equal the loss. So restorative justice does not apply here.

I know you are aware of correlation/causation, but replying with "NO DUHR" while still ignoring the fallacy doesn't suddenly make it non-applicable to you're statistics.

So, let me get this straight: You are arguing against the death penalty in favor of an admittedly non-functioning rehabilitation system (but then calling my analogy stupid after admitting the current system doesn't work ) because you would prefer a completely different but impossible [working] rehabilitation system.

Yeah, I must be stupid

 

[skeptik]

Obviously I was speaking entirely theoretically and not practically. It was so overwhelmingly obvious that it didn't need to be explained. Also, restorative justice is more than just giving back what was taken. And killing somebody is still not the answer. Having your loved one murdered does not give you the right over somebody else's life.

The correlation/causation distinction does not apply to my statistics because my statistics never claimed to be causational. In fact, there is nothing that can even be considered for causationality. What do you think I was trying to say? That the death penalty encourages crime? How the hell else do you even mean to apply causation to those statistics? It has nothing to do with causation at all. I seriously can't even imagine what you think causation has to do with what I said. All I have said was that the evidence that we do have suggests that the death penalty is not a deterrence to crime in any meaningful or significant way. We have no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise, and thus we should not act on a principle contrary to it. We have no reason to believe that the death penalty is a deterrence.

I'm arguing against the death penalty primarily because I fundamentally believe that it's absolutely wrong to kill a human being, no matter what he's done, unless there is a legitimate and imminent threat that he will continue to cause serious harm to others. It's unnecessary killing and restores nothing of value, and nothing can justify it. I am not arguing against the death penalty "in favor of an admittedly non-functioning rehabilitation system". First of all, we don't have a rehabilitation system. I was arguing in favor of life imprisonment as an equally valid, cheaper, more humane, and more justifiable alternative. My digression on the preferability of focusing on rehabilitation over punishment had nothing to do with the argument for or against the death penalty. It was a non sequitor. Also, do not paint this non sequitor as a genuine proposal. I never said it would happen, I was merely stating my views on how the justice system should function in theory, thereby best serving the interests of all. I never said anything about the "current system", which has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting. I called your analogy stupid because it doesn't apply to what I'm suggesting, but to the current system. The two should not be compared because they're completely different (even allowing that we even have a "current system" of rehabilitation for criminals, which we don't). Furthermore, what I'm suggesting is hardly impossible. Do not mistake the fact that it would never happen with a determination of impossibility. We are treading on ideological grounds right now, not practical grounds.

 

[Dak]

I'm arguing against the death penalty primarily because I fundamentally believe that it's absolutely wrong to kill a human being, no matter what he's done,

So it is merely based off of a fundamental personal opinion, while mine is opposite. Hardly something you can "argue".

Edit: Does this apply in self defense situations as well?

We are treading on ideological grounds right now, not practical grounds.

Which is the other half of why we aren't seeing eye-to-eye.

unless there is a legitimate and imminent threat that he will continue to cause serious harm to others.

This must fall under idealogical because it's practically undeterminable, unless the murderer straight up says "Ima keep killin if I can".

My fundamental belief is that the murderer must pay for his crime, since as you said nothing of value can be restored. By commiting murder, he has forfeited his own right to life.

Rehabilitation as you are suggesting IS impossible though an admittedly pleasant utopian concept. There is no way to really tell if someone is truly rehabilitated. That's not saying that some wouldn't be rehabilitated in the right system, but that there is no way of garunteeing rehabilitation, and the innocent do not deserve to have someone who has already shown a disdain for life to walk free again.

This arguement is done since obviously the focal point of the disagreement is based on fundamentally opposed opinions, and whats left is an idealogical impossibility.

 

[metal_wrath]

I'm arguing against the death penalty primarily because I fundamentally believe that it's absolutely wrong to kill a human being, no matter what he's done

Holy shit... are you serious?

 

[Life Sucks]

I believe that it is not wrong to kill a killer. I support the death penalty only for killers, where it is 100% certain they committed the murder. I most DEFINITELY do NOT support the death penalty for rape or treason, or any other crimes others may support the death penalty for.

 

[Einherjar86]

I support the death penalty only for killers, where it is 100% certain they committed the murder.

Cases like this are very rare.

 

[panzerfaust666]

Originally Posted by Dodens Grav
I'm arguing against the death penalty primarily because I fundamentally believe that it's absolutely wrong to kill a human being, no matter what he's done,

fully agreed.

 

[The Ozzman]

If I am in danger of having my life taken from me by force, you're goddamn right I'm going to kill the fucker trying to take my life. Any other viewpoint is fucking ludicrous in my eyes