Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

[chuj666]

FEEL THE EXCITEMENT- PRE AND POST CAMPAIGN

 

[Xorv]

lulz Palin, I think we all know who really did the damage....

 

[skeptik]

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

First of all, you fucking douche, don't cut off my sentence in order to frame it in such a way that projects a message that I did not say. Include the full message as a whole, because as you can see by the responses that followed, people misinterpreted what I mean based on your convenient enjambment, as seen here:

Holy shit... are you serious?

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

That is a really pathetic and cheap debating tactic, and you should be embarrassed. Your stupid little edit there would have been answered if you didn't massacre my statement. Obviously in a matter of life and death, it is okay to defend yourself even if it requires killing another person. On to your other point, namely that ideology cannot be debated:

Of course it can be debated. It's debated all the time. Explain to me what purpose it serves to kill a man who can do no harm to anybody. What good does this do? What does this accomplish practically that life imprisonment does not accomplish? There is a debate.

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

Don't cut off my sentences and you wouldn't have a ask such a dumb question.

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

I was only referring to my suggestion of rehabilitation versus punishment here.

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

Again, what benefit is accrued from killing somebody who poses no further threat?

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.

First, how is life imprisonment not punishment? Second, from what crevice of your ass did you pull this whole forfeiture of right to life? In a perfectly realistic view, none of us have a right to life. But speaking in terms of the conception of rights as we understand them as ideas, it is impossible to forfeit your right to life involuntarily. The social contract is supposed to protect against that. Violating the contract does not forfeit your right to be alive.

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.

There is no way to really tell is someone is truly not going to shoot a baby tomorrow. There are no certainties in this world, and expecting them is stupid. We will never have absolute certainty that anyone will not commit a crime unless he is genuinely unable to do so. If a convict demonstrates that his likelihood of committing a crime is so void of a basis, then he should not be held to a standard that non-convicted citizens do not have to be subjected to. If a convict is no more likely to commit a crime than another person, then there is no reason to have him locked up (note that this statement is intentionally eliminating punishment from the equation to highlight the fundamental issue behind what I'm saying).

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.

I'm sorry that you can't adequately defend your position while making sense at the same time.

 

[Xorv]

Probably with Life imprisonment is tax payer money supporting someone who is in some ways non-existent, considering he spends the rest of his un-productive life in a acre by acre residence that 90% of society will never see.

KILL HIM.

 

[The Ozzman]

On to your other point, namely that ideology cannot be debated:

Of course it can be debated. It's debated all the time. Explain to me what purpose it serves to kill a man who can do no harm to anybody. What good does this do? What does this accomplish practically that life imprisonment does not accomplish? There is a debate.

I should have elaborated and said any other viewpoint regarding that specific scenario is ludicrous. Obviously it's wrong to kill someone for, say, walking down the street. It's a silly example, but the only way I could justify killing someone is if I was in danger of my life being taken from me or if my family was in danger.

 

[skeptik]

Probably with Life imprisonment is tax payer money supporting someone who is in some ways non-existent, considering he spends the rest of his un-productive life in a acre by acre residence that 90% of society will never see.

KILL HIM.

If your issue with life imprisonment is money, it costs more to kill somebody than to lock him up for life, and this is well-established.

I should have elaborated and said any other viewpoint regarding that specific scenario is ludicrous. Obviously it's wrong to kill someone for, say, walking down the street. It's a silly example, but the only way I could justify killing someone is if I was in danger of my life being taken from me or if my family was in danger.

I wasn't responding to or attacking you, I only quoted you to demonstrate the effect Dakryn's ball-less tactic had on how people interpreted what I meant to say.

 

[Xorv]

If your issue with life imprisonment is money, it costs more to kill somebody than to lock him up for life, and this is well-established.

elaborate on how it is more expensive.

 

[AchrisK]

elaborate on how it is more expensive.

Seriously, this is mind boggling. It throws everyone who reads it for the first time for a loop!

Apparently it's the appeals process, plus everything else.

 

[Xorv]

A Guillotine is not that expensive.

 

[Dak]

If your issue with life imprisonment is money, it costs more to kill somebody than to lock him up for life, and this is well-established.

I wasn't responding to or attacking you, I only quoted you to demonstrate the effect Dakryn's ball-less tactic had on how people interpreted what I meant to say.

Tacking on the rest of it which is:

no matter what he's done, unless there is a legitimate and imminent threat that he will continue to cause serious harm to others.

still really doesn't change anything the way it's written, and don't assume I am going to assume your implied meaning.

First, how is life imprisonment not punishment? Second, from what crevice of your ass did you pull this whole forfeiture of right to life? In a perfectly realistic view, none of us have a right to life. But speaking in terms of the conception of rights as we understand them as ideas, it is impossible to forfeit your right to life involuntarily. The social contract is supposed to protect against that. Violating the contract does not forfeit your right to be alive.

I never said life imprisonment isn't punishment. It just isn't adequate. And what do you mean "involuntarily forfeit the right to life"? It is a voluntary forfeiture upon commiting murder.
I can equally request what crevice of your ass did you pull the idea a murderer still has the same rights as anyone else, since he has violated the most fundamental right humans have (thereby voluntarily forfeiting his own right to that).

There is no way to really tell is someone is truly not going to shoot a baby tomorrow. There are no certainties in this world, and expecting them is stupid. We will never have absolute certainty that anyone will not commit a crime unless he is genuinely unable to do so

No, but in the case of murder the most important aspect is punishment equal to the crime. Secondly, is that someone who has demonstrated a disdain for life once IS automatically a greater threat for a repeat performance since his fundamentals will unlikely change, and even if they did, how could you tell?

 

[Xorv]

srsly the dark ages has more common sense on this issue. Why go to such lengths to accomplish one single task and make it as painless/quick as plausible when usually the accused did not think that of his/her victims.

and no level of death penalty extremity is a deterrent when man is naturally violent/stupid/greedy/vengeful.

 

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

They were the goddamn Dark Ages for a reason!

EDIT:

ACHRISK AND ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND HOW PAYING FOR THE DEATH PENALTY WORKS READ THIS GIGANTIC TESTIMONY BY THE GUY WHO RUNS THE DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER! Especially the below excerpt which is more than relevant:

The death penalty on the cheap is really no bargain. There is no abstract dollar
figure for the cost of the death penalty--it ultimately depends on the quality of the
system a state demands. In Illinois, their system was fraught with error. Over a 20-
year period, they freed more innocent people from death row than they executed. As a
result, a blue-ribbon commission there recommended 85 changes to make the death
penalty more reliable; most of these changes, if implemented, will cost the state even
more money.15
There is little dispute that the death penalty is expensive. Sentencing someone to
life in prison is also very expensive. But death penalty costs are accrued up-front,
especially at trial and for the early appeals, while life-in-prison costs are spread out over
many decades. A million dollars spent today is a lot more costly to the state than a
million dollars that can be paid gradually over 40 years.
14

 

[King Richard]

Am I the only one who didn't think Nader's comment was that big of a deal? He explained his point pretty well, that guy on Fox took it completely out of context.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

srsly the dark ages has more common sense on this issue. Why go to such lengths to accomplish one single task and make it as painless/quick as plausible usually the accused did not think that of his/her victims.

and no level of death penalty extremity is a deterrent when man is naturally violent/stupid/greedy/vengeful.

I have no idea what you are saying.

 

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

Rick, there was no need to bring race into it, he just did it to be a real-life troll, as he's always been. He is, like creepy reptile Fox News man said, a fucking irrelevant figure in politics.

 

[The Ozzman]

Nader is more relevant than the majority of politicians. He actually sticks to his beliefs and is an advocate of the people. You can't say that about the major parties these days

 

[King Richard]

Rick, there was no need to bring race into it, he just did it to be a real-life troll, as he's always been. He is, like creepy reptile Fox News man said, a fucking irrelevant figure in politics.

Fair enough. He definitely could have worded his comments a little different. I don't pay attention to Nader so I don't really know his true intentions behind the comment.

 

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

Relevancy has nothing to do with sticking to your guns tbh, it has more to do with being a contender, being thought of when people say "politics"...etc. Nader just...doesn't.

 

[AchrisK]

They were the goddamn Dark Ages for a reason!

EDIT:

ACHRISK AND ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND HOW PAYING FOR THE DEATH PENALTY WORKS READ THIS GIGANTIC TESTIMONY BY THE GUY WHO RUNS THE DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER! Especially the below excerpt which is more than relevant:

Don't be typing my name in all caps!

 

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

Yeaaaah I know only the first and last letter are. But I decided to yell, and caps is auto-pilot for cool!

EDIT: I SUPPOSE I SHOULD PROVIDE THE LINK TO THIS INFORMATION!

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/MDTestimony08.pdf

Enjoy.