AchrisK
Weakling
I had heard that from Ozzman, about the caps thing.
I am not arguing it, it just still trips me out. Don't yell at me. I am frail.
Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
I had heard that from Ozzman, about the caps thing.
I am not arguing it, it just still trips me out. Don't yell at me. I am frail.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
King Richard
Hello there
King Richard
Hello there
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
Hubster
...
I watched it again last night and cried. That was one of the most amazing speeches I think I've ever heard in my life.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
Hey, Dakryn: I don't feel like reading your giant debate with Dodens over the death penalty, but I'd like to point out the following things:
1) Putting a murderer to death because he "deserves it" serves NO FUCKING PURPOSE WHATSOEVER besides giving the family of the victim a sick sense of vengeance. The job of the government is not to allow people to "get back at" those who do them harm, it's to PROTECT SOCIETY. This is accomplished most humanely by locking the murderer up.
2) Murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates of all crimes, so there's a pretty good chance that more innocent lives are lost through wrongful death sentences than through repeat murders. Since 1973, when the U.S. began exonerating death row inmates, 130 have been exonerated. With about 9000 death sentences given during that time, and the majority of cases lacking DNA evidence to overturn a conviction, it's safe to say that the courts are killing innocent people. This is why the death penalty is very dangerous, and should only be used in extreme cases. To risk killing innocent people just to give a victim's family members some perverse gratification is wrong on multiple levels.
1) Putting a murderer to death because he "deserves it" serves NO FUCKING PURPOSE WHATSOEVER besides giving the family of the victim a sick sense of vengeance. The job of the government is not to allow people to "get back at" those who do them harm, it's to PROTECT SOCIETY. This is accomplished most humanely by locking the murderer up.
2) Murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates of all crimes, so there's a pretty good chance that more innocent lives are lost through wrongful death sentences than through repeat murders. Since 1973, when the U.S. began exonerating death row inmates, 130 have been exonerated. With about 9000 death sentences given during that time, and the majority of cases lacking DNA evidence to overturn a conviction, it's safe to say that the courts are killing innocent people. This is why the death penalty is very dangerous, and should only be used in extreme cases. To risk killing innocent people just to give a victim's family members some perverse gratification is wrong on multiple levels.
MasterOLightning
Optimator
Like gay marriage, the death penalty is an issue that should not be one. When presented with the facts, it's completely irrational to argue for the death penalty. It serves no purpose that permanent incapacitation (imprisonment) does not, and it's more cost effective to simply incarcerate. On any practical grounds, there is no argument for the death penalty.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
I didn't say it serves no purpose at all, and I certainly don't believe that. It should be used to get rid of people who are too dangerous to keep alive. That does not include the common murderer, though, who in the vast majority of cases would never seek to kill again.
Execution for a retributive purpose simply amounts to killing someone just to make someone else feel a little better, and it's not like the killing helps the other person out in any way since a murder cannot be undone. Pretty much every other punishment in our entire legal system goes toward deterring crime or compensating victims materially. The death penalty does neither.
Execution for a retributive purpose simply amounts to killing someone just to make someone else feel a little better, and it's not like the killing helps the other person out in any way since a murder cannot be undone. Pretty much every other punishment in our entire legal system goes toward deterring crime or compensating victims materially. The death penalty does neither.
False Joe
Who cares.
Oddly enough theres a debate at my uni this week on this very subject.
I'm tempted to go and simply to steal arguments off this thread.
I'm tempted to go and simply to steal arguments off this thread.
entanglement
Member
Yeah I'm not from the US. But I did wait till tuesday to vote.:Smokedev:
Oh and what do you know? Anybody could win tbh.. lets not lose hope.
No, he could win but wouldn't be able to be President because he doesn't meet the requirements to be President.
Although, some feel Obama's eventual presidency will be illegitimate, so meh
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Xorv
Drug the Priest
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
I watched McCain's and Obama's speeches live on CNN after they announced the results and was very impressed with both of them. If McCain had handled the rest of his campaign the way he handled his concession speech, I think he'd have had a much better chance of winning. Obama's speech for phenomenal though and it brought everyone in the room to tears, myself included. It's so refreshing to be having a president who can actually articulate his thoughts in an eloquent manner, especially after the past eight years.
It really grinds my nerves though that some people are already on his ass about it, especially since the argument that I've heard isn't even legitimate. One of my friends' moms is up in arms about it because he said "we may not get there in one year, or in one term" and insists that this is his way of back pedalling, because his ideas are too ambitious to ever become reality. I honestly don't know how she can say this though, because it didn't take one year or one term to get ourselves into this mess and I sincerely doubt that any of Obama's supporters were under the impression that he was some kind of savior who would fix everything over night.
EDIT: She also said that she will support Obama anyway, because we should always support our president no matter what, which I think is total bullshit. No one is simply entitled to the support of the people, they have to earn that support by fulfilling a responsibility to the people. In fact, this very philosophy is the basis of our Declaration of Independence.
It really grinds my nerves though that some people are already on his ass about it, especially since the argument that I've heard isn't even legitimate. One of my friends' moms is up in arms about it because he said "we may not get there in one year, or in one term" and insists that this is his way of back pedalling, because his ideas are too ambitious to ever become reality. I honestly don't know how she can say this though, because it didn't take one year or one term to get ourselves into this mess and I sincerely doubt that any of Obama's supporters were under the impression that he was some kind of savior who would fix everything over night.
EDIT: She also said that she will support Obama anyway, because we should always support our president no matter what, which I think is total bullshit. No one is simply entitled to the support of the people, they have to earn that support by fulfilling a responsibility to the people. In fact, this very philosophy is the basis of our Declaration of Independence.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
I have a tremendous fear of the impatience of our country. I'm all but convinced that the conservative wing of the country will gain and maintain power in 2012 and for the foreseeable future thereafter due to the fact that Obama (nor anybody who would have been in his position) will not be able to pull us out of the slums in which we now find ourselves in 4 years. It's just not fucking possible.
Similar threads
