yes and throw away the key
no, they deserve a second chance
sorry, but your OPINION is not fact...and that is a FACT.When you kill someone who is not an immediate threat to you, that's murder. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's a fact.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
It is fact. Just because the United States wants to call it something else, doesn't make it so. Read the link I posted please.sorry, but your OPINION is not fact...and that is a FACT.
You have yet to present any facts.
I disagree. A lot of the countries who abolished the death penalty did so because it goes against human rights.Still an appeal to emotion, still a strawman.
Okay fine. I'll use the word "killing" instead. Better? But really, this is nothing more than semantics. Just because the death penalty isn't "illegal" it's still as bad as murder. They lock a person up, put them on death row for years (because they have to) and then they kill them. What would happen if I killed a person who I believed killed one of my loved ones? I would be charged with murder. Why is it okay for the state to do this?Whether or not we are intelligent is irrelevant to the fact that broadly, or in regards to the US, capital punishment is not "murder".
No, it's the opposite. It's an appeal to logic. The death penalty is just not logical anymore in our modern times. It is also unnecessary. That tells me that the people who support it are basing it off an emotion that they want an eye for an eye. That is based in emotion and not logic in any way.Yes, it is. It's using "simple facts" to appeal to emotion in hopes of making one feel like we're "dumb" or we're "evil" or we're "wrong" for having the death penalty by comparing us to "bad" or "dumb" countries when that is entirely irrelevant to the notion of whether or not it's "murder". Murder is not the "dumb killing" of someone, it's not the "evil killing" or someone, it's the "illegal" killing of someone. Continually pointing out the "fact" of which countries also allow for capital punishment does nothing against my statement OTHER than attempt to pull emotional heart strings.
You prove my point precisely about your hyper emotional state.
I'm not necessarily referring to you. There have been plenty others on this thread who say "kill them!" Put them in gen pop and let them get raped! Come on!!! That IS an overly emotional knee jerk reaction. You are trying to turn it around on me and try to say that I'm the one being emotional, but I am actually fighting the emotional side of my brain which agrees sometimes that it wants to see a killer suffer. I have to fight against that to get to the logical side where I realize that the death penalty is really quite useless.I haven't "screamed out for blood lust". I haven't actually suggested in any way what should happen to these kids. I've not suggested it'll solve any problems. I've SIMPLY and singularly stated that your BROAD claim that capital punishment is "state sponsored murder" is incorrect. That's it. YOU are the one having a "knee jerk reaction" that is an "emotional one" to my statement. YOU are the one assuming somehow that I'm suggesting that because it's not "murder" that it's somehow mean it must be less bad, less evil, less immoral, less wrong, etc. I've said no such thing. I've simply suggested that your claim or "murder" is incorrect.
Um yeah, you just said I was being overly emotional even though I tell you no I am not. I am fighting against that to try to be logical. People who want to kill somebody are the ones who are emotional. I can't even believe this. . . It's really obvious who is basing their opinions on emotion, and it certainly isn't me. Like I've stated multiple times now, there are times when I myself would like to see a person get the DP, and I fight it.Here's a lesson for you, since you are failing MISERABLY and throwing fallacies all over the place. Ready?
Read what people actually SAY, stop imagining what they say based on your prejducies and emotions
No you haven't, so then you're okay with stoning, beheading, hanging. What about strangulation? Would that be okay too?I've made no comment about other countries "murdering" their citizens. ACTUALLY, quite to the contrary, I specifically said you would NOT find me complaining that a country is "murdering" it's citizens when it comes to the death penalty. This is REGARDLESS of how brutal I think the penalty is or how stupid I think the law is.
I think it is. No one should allow the state the power to kill it's people. This can be easily abused and is when innocent people are at risk, and this is a risk you take EVERY TIME you employ the DP.I may DISLIKE their methods, I may think their laws are inhumane, I might think the country is an immoral batch of filth....but none of that means I'd think their killing of someone under their laws is "murder".
Absolutely not based on emotion. Just the opposite.This goes back to my suggestion that you're basing this fully and completely from a hyper emotional state. There is nothing inherently less immoral, evil, wrong, bad, etc about KILLING someone and MURDERING someone. It just happens that murder is a specific type of killing, the specifically unlawful kind.
I wouldn't mind in the least if the death penalty was abolished. Again, we should never give the government that kind of power.I don't personally think we'll see it's abolition occur across the entire U.S. in my life time, but if we do...meh. I won't be sad over that. I think it'll be kind of foolish, becuase I think it's something that should be on the table, but I also don't have some over arching desire to desperately see it remain. Especially with how our appeals system works and how, almost counter intuitively, it seemingly costs the tax payers more to put someone to death then hold them for a life sentence. So I think it'll be a bit foolish to handcuff our options of what punishments are available if we get rid of it entirely, but it won't make me SAD in the least.
I use that because it really is. The government makes the laws. They say it's not "illegal" because they are the ones doing the killing and prefer to call it an execution or a punishment for a crime, but in reality they are killing an essentially helpless person who is not an immediate threat to them. If you are willing to accept that from our government, then fine, but I am not.Again, you have a horrible understanding of what words mean. Your opinion is not fact, those two words mean entirely different. What you just stated is not the definition of murder
PS: This is the longest I've been able to stay on line since 4:56 p.m. Woot!!!!
Human Rights are a subjective concept and irrelevant in this fashion to the notion of what is or isn’t murder…so again, no reason to include it other than an appeal to emotion.I disagree. A lot of the countries who abolished the death penalty did so because it goes against human rights.
Pretty much, yes. You’ll note my first response to you did nothing but comment about your attempt to label it as murder. Nothing else. Everything subsequent has been you assuming that meant I was condoning the notion of the death penalty in general o on these kids or trying to say that “yes it is murder”.Okay fine. I'll use the word "killing" instead. Better?
Again, this is just you going “I want to use words for their emotional triggers rather than because they’re actually accurate and I’m pissy that someone called me on it”.But really, this is nothing more than semantics.
Okay, that’s how you feel. Good for you. Has zero to do with any point I made. As is the entire rest of this paragraph.Just because the death penalty isn't "illegal" it's still as bad as murder.
No, it’s not. Bringing up how “bad” the death penalty is not an “appeal to logic” to counter my argument that it’s not “murder” because how “Bad” something is is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not it’s murder. So the ONLY appeal it’s doing is to emotion…in trying to make me feel guilty or bad for saying it’s not murder because it’s so horrible and wrong.No, it's the opposite. It's an appeal to logic.
That’s not logic…unless again we’re basically saying the definition of words don’t matter and logic suddenly means something entirely different.
And yet you typed it directly in relation and in attempt to counter MY point and MY argument.I'm not necessarily referring to you.
What others have done or said is irrelevant to my argument. If others want people put in “gen pop and raped” that affects my statement that Capital Punishment, in a broad sense or in the US sense, is not murder in zero ways.
Saying your arguments are being based off you being emotional is not an example of me not reading what you SAY…it’s an example of me taking what you say and suggesting WHY I think you’re saying it.Um yeah, you just said I was being overly emotional even though I tell you no I am not.
This is difference to where I SPECIFICALLY said that I would NOT do something and you responded in a way that would indicate that I stated I WOULD do something.
I specifically stated I would not complain about Iran or any other country “MURDERING” their citizens under their legal system. You then made a post stating that I “see other countries as bad for murdering their citizens”. Something I SPECIFICALLY said the opposite of.
What you referenced is an example of me stating my opinion about the motives behind your statements as a whole. What I referenced is an example of you claiming I said something 180 degrees different than what I actually said.
Let me perhaps break this down a bit simpler since you’re seemingly confused…I am fighting against that to try to be logical.
I was not suggesting your stance that THESE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS should not get the death penalty is an emotional based argument.
I was not suggesting your stance that the death penalty is bad in some fashion is an emotional based argument.
I was suggesting that your continued attempt to proclaim it as “MURDER”, and to claim I was wrong for saying it wasn’t, was an emotional based argument.
Whether or not I’m “okay” with them is IRRELEVANT to my point. You continue to attempt to throw a strawman up there to attempt to get me to veer off the point because you can’t actually counter it…sorry, not playing that game.No you haven't, so then you're okay with stoning, beheading, hanging. What about strangulation? Would that be okay too?
And you’re absolutely free to have that opinion. That opinion doesn’t make capital punishment murder.I think it is. No one should allow the state the power to kill it's people. This can be easily abused and is when innocent people are at risk, and this is a risk you take EVERY TIME you employ the DP.
No, it’s not. By the very definition of the word in the context you’re speaking, it unequivocally is not.I use that because it really is.
Is there a specific quota of facts that you require?
Three teens, Chancey Allen Luna, James Francis Edwards, and Michael DeWayne Jones, were following Chris Lane, an Australian baseball player while he jogged alongside a road when Edwards aimed a gun at Lane and shot him IN THE BACK.
Surveillance video from SEVERAL BUSINESSES captured images of the suspects vehicle, and after they were arrested, Edwards CONFESSED that his motive was "Were going to kill somebody." They defended themselves from being bored.
Edwards had prior run-ins with the law, and he also tweeted "With my n*****s when it's time to start taken life's and 90% of white people are nasty #Hate them."
What would you call someone who shoots an innocent stranger IN THE BACK for no apparent reason.
If they are innocent and naïve, why were they running?