• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death penalty for ........ ?

Death penalty for ...?

  • For the criminals guilty of 1st degree murder ,mass murderers ,serial killers

    Votes: 5 9.3%

  • Serial killers ,mass murderers ,organized criminals participating in terrorist actions

    Votes: 4 7.4%

  • Criminals guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder,serial killers,mass murderers

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • serial killers , serial rapists ,pedophiles,

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • all kind of murderers , rapists ,pedohiles

    Votes: 4 7.4%

  • only mass murderers

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • any kind of murderers and rapists

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • it is against human rights

    Votes: 2 3.7%

  • I am against death penalty

    Votes: 30 55.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 16.7%
  • Total voters
    54
Shadowless said:
Executing people is not civilized. We are in the company of Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, & Russia. Those nations are not civilized. They are brutal dictatorships.
Click to expand...
Again? Says who?
Not our society.
 
Shadowless said:
And our society is not civilized as long as we have the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

It is just a civil either way.
But getting rid of the criminally undesirable is a more civilized position.
 
Ikari said:
Why just biological dependence? Can an infant really exist on their own? Even beyond that, adults are terribly interdependent upon each other for survival and progress. There can be isolated cases of people withdrawing, but even then the number of people truly independent is smaller. So now we're all equally dependent, from unborn to death we are dependent upon others for our survival.

You're just making a convenient bookmark by noting the end conclusion you want to draw. So is the worth of a man dependent upon the influence they can have? The serendipity of birth? Actions taken?

But why should a child in Africa have any fundamental difference than one in the US? This is the question you have not addressed.
Click to expand...

You asked for an example and I gave you a very valid one. Doesnt matter that you dont like it. Dont move the goal posts just because my valid example is inconvenient to your argument.

And I never said it needed to survive on it's own, I was very clear in my distinction. Humans are social animals. If other tribe members cared for the child, it would survive. If they didnt, it would die. But it could survive without it's connection to the mother.

And did I say that a child in Africa should have different rights than American kids? Quote that please. I used *the fact* that many other cultures around the world do not recognize equal rights for all humans and used gender as an example (not kids), as evidence that that shows "all humans have a right to life" is not 'intrinsic' at all.
 
Lursa said:
Once again, an example of "Christian" thought that is more in line with the Taliban than the vast majority of Christians and which leads, unfortunately, to some viewing a religion based on peace, forgiveness, brotherhood, and the Golden Rule, as hypocritical at best and tyrannical and hateful at worst.
Click to expand...

Christianity is not a democracy.

And there have been plenty of Christian states that have executed people for those things.
 
Paleocon said:
Christianity is not a democracy.

And there have been plenty of Christian states that have executed people for those things.
Click to expand...

Does not make it right nor does it make it remotely within the actual teachings and Word of God.
 
Lursa said:
Does not make it right nor does it make it remotely within the actual teachings and Word of God.
Click to expand...

It is in no way contrary to the teachings of Christianity.
 
Paleocon said:
It is in no way contrary to the teachings of Christianity.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Check out the New Testament sometime.

Your contorted view of Christianity harms all of us and are a good reason why people are turning away from the faith.
 
Lursa said:
Of course it is. Check out the New Testament sometime.

Your contorted view of Christianity harms all of us and are a good reason why people are turning away from the faith.
Click to expand...

As I suspected you have no argument. The New Testament does not anywhere condemn capital punishment.
 
I didn't see it in the poll, but the death penalty is also available for treason. I agree it should be, and it should also be available for first-degree murder. That usually includes multiple murders. A death penalty for rape and other lesser felonies than murder is unconstitutional.
 
matchlight said:
I didn't see it in the poll, but the death penalty is also available for treason. I agree it should be, and it should also be available for first-degree murder. That usually includes multiple murders. A death penalty for rape and other lesser felonies than murder is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the last time the DP was used for treason was the early 1950s. Still in effect as an option, just hasn't been used.
 
radcen said:
IIRC, the last time the DP was used for treason was the early 1950s. Still in effect as an option, just hasn't been used.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's right. Treason is a notoriously hard crime to prove, and that is why legal experts have suggested charging the crime of seditious conspiracy instead. Federal prosecutors used it very effectively against some of the jihadists involved in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. It is not something you want to be convicted of:

§2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
 
Paleocon said:
As I suspected you have no argument. The New Testament does not anywhere condemn capital punishment.
Click to expand...

You are right, there is no argument. The Bible never suggested death for using contraception, blasphemy. arson, or drug trafficking, for instance. Your contorted view of Christianity is beyond anything in the Bible, it is truly a Blessing that anyone that might think like you are in a very very very very small minority. It just bothers me that you have access to anything public at all to spout your tripe. But like the disgusting Westboro "church," you are entitled to your first Amendment rights, many of which you'd see curtailed for others if you had your way.
 
Lursa said:
You are right, there is no argument. The Bible never suggested death for using contraception, blasphemy. arson, or drug trafficking, for instance. Your contorted view of Christianity is beyond anything in the Bible, it is truly a Blessing that anyone that might think like you are in a very very very very small minority. It just bothers me that you have access to anything public at all to spout your tripe. But like the disgusting Westboro "church," you are entitled to your first Amendment rights, many of which you'd see curtailed for others if you had your way.
Click to expand...

And of course, you have literally no argument at all. Nothing you have said has any basis in the Bible, it's all just your personal illogical opinion. The New Testament condones capital punishment BTW.
 
Paleocon said:
And of course, you have literally no argument at all. Nothing you have said has any basis in the Bible, it's all just your personal illogical opinion. The New Testament condones capital punishment BTW.
Click to expand...

You are repeating yourself. I clearly mentioned things you wrote that the NT did not condemn people to death for.
 
Lursa said:
You are repeating yourself. I clearly mentioned things you wrote that the NT did not condemn people to death for.
Click to expand...

Which is of course moving the goalposts. The NT does condone capital punishment (see Romans 13), and doesn't limit it to X cases. I'm sure you'll continue to whine about it, but that's all you're doing.
 
Paleocon said:
Which is of course moving the goalposts. The NT does condone capital punishment (see Romans 13), and doesn't limit it to X cases. I'm sure you'll continue to whine about it, but that's all you're doing.
Click to expand...

I never said it didnt. My comments were on your specific interpretations and your personal contortions of Christian teachings.
 
Lursa said:
I never said it didnt. My comments were on your specific interpretations and your personal contortions of Christian teachings.
Click to expand...

Your comments have been a red herring since you first replied to me in this thread. You started by claiming I was interpreting the Bible wrong, when I hadn't even made any statements about the Bible. Now you're still claiming I'm interpreting it wrong, even while admitting that the only statement I've made regarding it you admit to be correct.

Seriously, please try to respond in a logical fashion.
 
Paleocon said:
Your comments have been a red herring since you first replied to me in this thread. You started by claiming I was interpreting the Bible wrong, when I hadn't even made any statements about the Bible. Now you're still claiming I'm interpreting it wrong, even while admitting that the only statement I've made regarding it you admit to be correct.

Seriously, please try to respond in a logical fashion.
Click to expand...

No red herring. Here are your own words. My comments on your abuse of "Christianity" still stand.

Paleocon said:
I think the death penalty should be an option for a wide range of serious crimes. Murder, treason, rape, incest, sodomy, kidnapping, contraception, sacrilege, blasphemy, participating in subversive organizations, drug trafficking, human trafficking, witchcraft, armed robbery, and arson to name a few.
Click to expand...
 
I voted "other"

it should be an OPTION for murder, rape, extreme assault, very rare and extreme theft/financial crimes. i.e. CEO of Wal-mart embezzles all of its money money and 2.2 milion people lose thier jobs, it should be an "option" lol

side note on pedophilia, it is a mental disorder where a person is attracted to prepubescents but if they commit no crime nothing should be done to them, but if they rape and kill and sexually assult see above
 
Lursa said:
You asked for an example and I gave you a very valid one. Doesnt matter that you dont like it. Dont move the goal posts just because my valid example is inconvenient to your argument.

And I never said it needed to survive on it's own, I was very clear in my distinction. Humans are social animals. If other tribe members cared for the child, it would survive. If they didnt, it would die. But it could survive without it's connection to the mother.

And did I say that a child in Africa should have different rights than American kids? Quote that please. I used *the fact* that many other cultures around the world do not recognize equal rights for all humans and used gender as an example (not kids), as evidence that that shows "all humans have a right to life" is not 'intrinsic' at all.
Click to expand...

I'm asking questions, don't get mad bro. There's no goal posts being moved. You gave an example, but it wasn't in context to this conversation and it has arbitrary definitions based on where you want to draw a line for interdependency.

Cultures around the world not recognizing equal rights of all humans is not evidence that human life doesn't share the same base value, nor does it mean that it is not intrinsic. You're making a logical leap. The free exercise of rights can certainly be infringed upon by outside force. So while all human life carries inherent value, it does not mean that all cultures or people will recognize or respect that value.

So back to the original question, which you haven't addressed. If humans are not equal, that their lives hold no value, then how are those inequalities introduced? What breaks the symmetry?
 
Paleocon said:
As I suspected you have no argument. The New Testament does not anywhere condemn capital punishment.
Click to expand...

What do you think of the Papacy's restrictive approach to capital punishment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom