| This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there! |
| The Death Penalty | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 1 2007, 11:11 PM (2,666 Views) | |
| Bill | Aug 8 2007, 03:19 PM Post #101 |
|
Well at what point would you call the pre-emption justified? Killing in self-defence involves an immediate, imminent, clear and present danger. Not a statistical possibility. Hey, let's merge the two issues: We all know about criminal profiling. It's a short step to profile a killer's parents. So if there's a pregnant woman who, according to profiles, is statistically likely to giver birth to a killer, should she have an abortion? :lol: |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 8 2007, 03:22 PM Post #102 |
|
We know you're both sweethearts. Interesting enough, I'm not a Nazi either.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 8 2007, 03:38 PM Post #103 |
![]()
|
THANKS!!!
And I NEVER thought you where a NAZI...
you don't do the goosestep do you??
MESSIN!! OK...I am signing out for a bit so I can get some BLOODY WORK DONE HERE... :lol: :lol: Great debate though and I'll be BAAACK!!!
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2007, 04:00 PM Post #104 |
|
Deleted User
|
Sorry, you're the one who said that the reason Ted Bundy killed innocent people again was because he wasn't executed the first time around. And if someone I loved was murdered I believe I would be more concerned about the fact that it wasn't prevented, not what comes after. The only solution for what comes after someone is already gone is that we do our best to not let it happen again, ie put the attacker away if we believe they'll strike again. Unfortunately, the previous victims cannot be helped. Their rights and those of their families are long gone. And I think we all eventually learn that our emotions sometimes need to be kept away from our true decision making. The fact that I'd want very much to get my hands on whoever hurt my loved one, accidentally or not, is a good indication of how unreasonable that kind of action would be. I believe we have the right to feel like killing these people, but not the right to actually do so. And we don't really, do we? If any one of us were to take it upon ourselves, no matter how understandable, we'd be prosecuted. The fact that we feel this urge far more when it's someone we loved personally also proves that it is emotions over reason - every victim was loved by someone and yet we do not go around putting every guilty person down. Perhaps you think we should. At least there would be some consistency there. You kill a person, no matter what circumstances, and you'll be put to death. At the moment it's down to luck. How good a lawyer you've got, how intelligent and lenient a jury you've got and what evidence is found and allowed to be presented. Of course, innocent people are still released from death row but it's worth it for the Ted Bundy's of the world to get a needle in the arm, right? And what of the family and friends of the victims who oppose the death penalty? Would you allow them that right? Oh, and child molesters in prison? Not well received. |
|
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 8 2007, 04:03 PM Post #105 |
|
Hee Hee!! You NAZI you!! We all have our differing standpoints Bill, and I admire you greatly for defending your point. The Nazi comment was a simple analogy to point out pre-meditation in self defence, I HOPE you didn't take it to mean anything different!! :rolleyes: It's good to get ON the soap box sometimes, and also good to get off. This topic will never be resolved anywhere in civilised society. As for abortion, I am anti abortion except on medical advice. I AM a liberal, except when it comes to the death penalty and voluntary euthanasia. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| wackadoo | Aug 8 2007, 04:04 PM Post #106 |
![]()
|
This thread has become quite an interesting read and I respect the arguments on both sides. I am quite torn on this topic, partly because I have visited in the prisons and seen the 'soft' side of men who have taken the life of another. Most of the ones I know killed when they were kids. Had the system had reformation, these kids could have been reached. All of the ones I know, came from troubled or fatherless homes. The prisons in California have huge racial problems and are quite violent. All I see is that they are perfecting their skills as criminals while in prison. I don't have the answers but I do think they need to do something with these young kids who come into the system at such alarming numbers. It's not too late to reach them. Giving the death penalty or even life without parole is not the answer. I feel differently with child killers...I don't really care what the hell happens to them, to be honest. |
![]() RIP Steve. I love and miss you. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 8 2007, 04:17 PM Post #107 |
|
I think we're talking of only the hardened child or serial killers here. I don't think any of us would want to see people like you speak of executed without finding out reasons behind their crimes. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 8 2007, 04:24 PM Post #108 |
|
It's all mutual mate. I respect the passion and reasoning of everyone who has posted on this topic. And I'd much prefer that passions be stirred (at least for a while) than for everyone to be too wary to state their case. G'night all. There will be more!
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Mariele | Aug 8 2007, 04:55 PM Post #109 |
|
I am totally and utterly against it. My ex boyfriend is a human rights lawyer working tirelessly to get it abolished (it will happen) and I have learned so much about it. Mostly, it's not a deterrent at all, it sometimes even encourages a violent society. In African countries it's particularly bad - they don't have enough money to hire seperate guards to do the actual executions so the guards have to do it themselves - when they have known the person they're killing for years - it's totally wrong and messes up their heads. The executions happen in a room above the cells so the people on death row can hear their fellow inmates getting killed and it sends half of them mad. It's inconsistent - only 1% of people who commit murder are executed. It's a barbaric way of punishing people - Beheading, Electrocution, Hanging, Lethal injection, Shooting, Stoning - it sounds like something from the stoneage and has to be stopped. Some countries even exceute minors which is just insane...! And As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated. It's simply wrong. |
|
www.illustrationsbymariele.com www.wirelesstheatrecompany.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 8 2007, 05:13 PM Post #110 |
|
Or you COULD say...
Amazing how, once again, this is ALWAYS looked at from the point of view of the Killer isn't it? I'm only pointing out the alternative view. If people looked at this from the point of view of the VICTIMS of crime, then we may start getting somewhere. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2007, 05:18 PM Post #111 |
|
Deleted User
|
Bill, point a gun at a cop, with a smile say "I'm going to shoot you!" See if he goes for his gun. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2007, 05:20 PM Post #112 |
|
Deleted User
|
On 2nd thought you better not, I would miss posting with you.
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2007, 05:22 PM Post #113 |
|
Deleted User
|
Rest well.
|
|
|
| wackadoo | Aug 8 2007, 05:26 PM Post #114 |
![]()
|
Maybe, but some states have the death penalty for kids such as these. I know that Missouri tried to give the death penalty to 2 boys who killed a fellow student at a boarding school. One of the boys was 18 and one was 15 at the time of the crime. To be honest, the crime was brutal and I'm sure the family of the victim will forever be scarred by the loss of their son. As much as I feel for their loss, I know these boys had serious emotional issues and were reachable. I agree that the Ted Bundys of the world are seemingly impossible to reach and life w/o is a good solution to their incorrigible ways. Giving Bundy the death penalty was alright by me based on his sociopathic mentality. I guess it's obvious that I don't have a definitive opinion on this topic. As weird as it sounds, I look around in the visiting room and I see a lot of men who appear as normal as the next guy. I see them visiting with their families, playing with their kids, loving their wives or girlfriends, being respectful to other visitors and I would abhor the thought of any of them receiving the death penalty. |
![]() RIP Steve. I love and miss you. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 8 2007, 05:27 PM Post #115 |
|
My point exactly. It's a clear and present danger. He'd go for his gun. He wouldn't not take an incarcerated man, strap him to an aparatus and and kill him because there wouldn't be the time. I have no argument with self defence. That's always been the way. But pre-emptive self defence? That's not and excuse and never has been. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| ThirdHarmony | Aug 8 2007, 05:54 PM Post #116 |
|
It's interesting trying to map out how the various arguments are being presented, and there appears to be at least a few cases where the argument presented is interpreted in completely different ways by the pro/against sides without this being focused upon. One thing seems to be the philosophical "appeal to emotion" as an argument for why killing a (jailed) killer is more appropriate than isolating the killer for the remainder of his/her life (and I'm talking about true life, not the kind where they are let loose after a while). This stance uses certain key phrases such as "you are looking at it from the killer's point of view rather than the victim's". That statement, in said situations, while constructed with the best of intentions is suppose, is not rationally coherent. It might not even be considered an argument at all. What reaction is the phrase supposed to achieve? "Yes, because the crime is endlessly horrifying, especially to the victims, it is better to kill the (jailed) criminal than keeping him/her locked up for the rest of their lives"? If that is the intended reaction, then the sole purpose is by definition revenge and not a "it is safer for us all to kill him" type of purpose. And if the sole purpose is revenge, one must ask the question of the effectiveness of this, as well as take into account the risk of someone innocent eventually being killed. If there are two methods of keeping someone from killing again (1. jail for life (and I mean LIFE) and 2. death), how does the second method become preferrable for anything other than some "eye for an eye" revenge mentality? It is sometimes difficult to separate human emotion at its most blood-boiling level from the level-headedness required to make a governmental system of justice work. While we may be quick to shout "off with their heads!", it takes a while to realize that a society that allows for that kind of reasoning for executions over life imprisonment is susceptible for misuse, mistakes and brutalization. |
|
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2007, 06:16 PM Post #117 |
|
Deleted User
|
By the way I mentioned this creap in a preivous post on this thread. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289638,00.html John Couey Eligible for Death Penalty in Jessica Lunsford Murder After Judge Rules Him Mentally Competent INVERNESS, Fla. — A judge has cleared the way for the man convicted of kidnapping and raping 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford to be sentenced to death. The judge says John Evander Couey is not mentally retarded and is eligible for the death penalty. Couey's attorneys argued that their client suffered lifelong mental abuse and possessed a below normal IQ. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibits the execution of mentally retarded people. But Circuit Judge Ric Howard ruled the most credible intelligence exam rated Couey's IQ at 78. That's slightly above the 70 level generally considered retarded. |
|
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 8 2007, 06:20 PM Post #118 |
|
The point is very basic. 99% of the time (and I am talking about the UK), mass serial killers and murderers enjoy reasonably cushy existences in modern prisons. Myra Hindley even had a love affiar with a female guard - that CANNOT be right - that this person can LOVE be allowed to LOVE someone when she was accomplice to totally ruining out the lives of many many people. Her victims cannot love can they!! It's interesting to note that Ian Brady, Hindley's accomplice in the moors child murders of the 60's is indeed in favour of the death penalty, and belives he should have been killed long ago. He is outraged by the lenient treatment offered to him and Hindley. Life imprisonment wth no favours is the option I would always adhere to - however, I advocate the death penalty purely because governments come and go, and can alter rules and regulations. While ever the killer is alive, a lenient goverment can either release or shorten the sentence. Once the killer is executed there can be no movement of the goal posts. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2007, 08:48 PM Post #119 |
|
Deleted User
|
I believe you missed my point Bill. You would have not intended to shoot, notice how I said "with a smile" as if you were being sacastic about shooting the officer, but the officer would not know that. So at what point would the officer be justified in shooting? If he waits until fired upon, it may be too late. If a person is a danger to others, the danger must be removed by any means. |
|
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 8 2007, 09:01 PM Post #120 |
|
EXCELLENT point, and an EXCELLENT way of putting that across. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Aug 8 2007, 09:47 PM Post #121 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
Every person who lives in a country (and state) that executes people has blood on their hands. People are killing in your name - and, statistically, it would have to include innocent people. Val, I think you have been reading way too much fiction and sensationalised accounts. Psychopaths and sociopaths exist, but many people convicted of murder are not the ruthless, heartless killing machines you describe. They are all someone's son or daughter - maybe someone's sister, brother, uncle, husband, wife, mother or father. It may make you feel better to de-humanise every person convicted of murder, but that doesn't make it so. DNA testing is only as reliable as the system that implements it - and I don't trust the American (or British) police or legal system as far as I could throw the whole damn corrupt organisation. I have no faith that every person convicted of a crime has either committed it or, indeed, been given a truly fair hearing. There has been far too much foaming at the mouth screaming about 'liberalism'. Liberals are often accused of thinking with their hearts instead of their heads - but this is one issue where the roles are reversed completely. There is no logic behind supporting capital punishment and a lifetime's incarceration is a far greater punishment than just putting someone out of their misery. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 8 2007, 09:56 PM Post #122 |
|
With respect, you're talking as if people have no right to an opinion unless they agree with you. It's a topic that we'll never agree on. Conversely, you could say that everyone in a society that DOES NOT condone the death penalty has blood on their hands too - the blood of little kids who have been molested and killed by someone who knows they won't be executed, and will end up leading a reasonable life in prison. It's amazing how people against corporal punishment have throw out accusations. I have today been accused of thinking like a killer, and having blood on my hands. It's only opinions Andy - don't condemn people who have valid beliefs and points. I don't throw accusations at you just because your beliefs are different from mine. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Aug 8 2007, 10:07 PM Post #123 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
If your argument had any logic behind it, then it could at least be considered sound - but it doesn't. The death penalty is not a deterrent. If anything, it leads to the execution of witnesses to a crime because the initial crime was serious enough to warrant capital punishment - more senseless death. If people who murder, rape etc. actually stopped and thought - 'hey - if I do this then I'm going be killed... better not!' then you'd have a point, but they don't. It doesn't stop the crime, it only satisfies the victims and their relatives' lust for revenge, which is not my idea of justice. It doesn't make the word a safer place or stop the crimes from happening, it just ends up with more killing. It is not yours, mine or anyone's right to kill. The murders have committed an atrocity and the countries who kill in their citizens' names are committing atrocities. If the state is killing in your name then you, of course, have blood on your hands - and from what you've said, you don't seem to mind. I'm talking in no such way, Gary. You have your right to your opinion and I have a right to disagree with it, that's basically how forums work. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| ThirdHarmony | Aug 8 2007, 10:24 PM Post #124 |
|
That statement is not logical. It does not follow that someone who opposes the death penalty endorses or encourages murder. There are a few hidden assumptions in all this - 1. that a warped criminal would actively be considering the punishments involved before commiting the crimes and then 2. that said person actually would be considering death worse than life in prison (something which is not obvious). What we do have is a division in opinion on the different merits and drawbacks of two types of punishment. Having this division come down to differences in emotional temperament is pointless. Why in the world is it worth spending time implying notions such as that anti-death penalty people want to be nice to the murderers? Such notions only provide anger-fueling "talking points" without debate value and further enlarges the gap between the debating sides. |
|
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Aug 8 2007, 10:35 PM Post #125 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
A point well made, ThirdHarmony - and I'm also enjoying the Kurt Vonnegut Jr. quote in your signature.
|
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 8 2007, 10:39 PM Post #126 |
|
I suggest you look at the previous post as to the response I made. Of COURSE my quote is not logical, just as the opinion someone made about the pro death people as "thinking like killers". As you say Third Harmony, comments like the ones first stated by the anti death penalty faction only serve to inflame the argument. It's been an interesting discussion, and one I intend to spend no more time on, as there will never be any common ground on this one!! |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| ThirdHarmony | Aug 8 2007, 10:56 PM Post #127 |
|
Unfortunately, the nature of your reversal of Andy's statement into another which is "of course" not logical - is in itself what does not make sense. They are not similarly absurd statements. The former statement was about "killing in your name", insomuch you would endorse an execution as a form of punishment. The same can not be said about endorsing the actions of killers by being opposed to that particular form of punishment. Now, I don't want to be too uncompromising here. I do think it was an interesting (though debatable) point about the risk of future governments perhaps setting someone free who was previously sentenced to life with no chance of parole. In such a case we move back into the realm of preserving public safety as opposed to mere revenge. Furthermore, it is in the long run, when participating in discussions such as this one, slightly troubling to realise we are debating furiously on the topic of which punishments are suitable after the fact of enormous tragedy. The fact that these horrendous crimes take place, and with such frequency, is stomach turning - and very disturbing to read. I come from a country where the death penalty has long since been abolished - and while violent crime does take place, the rate of extreme crime (as in those mentioned repeatedly in this thread) is very low. This means I am less used to opening the paper in the morning and reading about yet another horrendous murder story, and this may affect my gut reactions to the usage of the death penalty - we become accustomed to what is custom. That goes for those in other systems as well. It brings to mind the question of what on earth can be done to reach these sick individuals before they go lethal. |
|
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| ThirdHarmony | Aug 8 2007, 11:04 PM Post #128 |
|
Ah, I believe that is one I first started using back on the old board in the midst of a very similar debate. Oh, how time flies - and how little changes.
|
|
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Aug 9 2007, 01:28 AM Post #129 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
It may be an excellent point on one hand but on the other hand, how is one to know where the danger lies? Let's take the gun away from the smiling person and put a toy gun in their hands instead. One more thing, let's make that person a young teenager. An emotional moment from the cop, or whoever else has a gun in their hands, will show the smiling teenager with the toy gun in their hands now on the ground with a bullet wound or two in their now fading of life body (or crippled body). Where was the danger? Who has the right to kill in any circumstance? Nobody does. Before you say that the scenario that I just painted for you is to silly to think about, it has happened all to many times where a young teenager has a toy gun in their hands and is killed or incapacitated for the rest of their lives. |
| |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Aug 9 2007, 01:31 AM Post #130 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
You will have blood on your hands if you spank my kid. Come to think of it, you would still have blood on your hands if you were to use capital punishment on that kid, too! |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 9 2007, 02:19 AM Post #131 |
|
It's perfectly simple. The policeman is not a mindreader. He has to assess the danger in a split second. When someone is already caught and incarcerated, they are not an immediate danger. Therefore, there is no analogy. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 9 2007, 02:37 AM Post #132 |
|
Further thoughts: 1: Val brought up an excellent point about people who support abortion but not the death penalty. There are other instances of apparent cognitive dissonance on these issues. For instance, I can't understand how a vegetarian can support abortion. That just doesn't compute in my mind. But that's a discussion that we've had before and will doubtlessly have again. Equally, I do not understand how anyone who considers themselves a Christian can support the death penalty. It goes against all the teachings. Judge not lest you be judged. Vengeance is Mine Let he who is without sin cast the first stone And the big one: Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. How many of us dutifully recite those lines without ever even attempting to put them into practice? I'm as guilty as the next person. There are a few grudges that I still enjoy carrying. There's no point going into them here but Gordon Cooper knows who he is. My point is that we tell God we forgive them, but do we? Do we even try? Do we even want to? Scientists are often accused spuriously of playing God but there's no greater way of playing God than deciding to kill someone. Now wait a minute Bill, are you saying that we should just forgive these mosters and let them go??? No, I am not. (thank you for asking. )They must be controlled and people must be protected. But man does not get to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die. It's in the book. 2: If it's justice to kill a killer, who not simply inflict everyone's crime back on them? Should rapists be forcibly sodomised? Should culpable drivers be forced to play on the freeway? Should thieves have their assets siezed? (I'd be in favour of the last one, but the only time the assets are siezed is to back back those who they robbed - not to inflict their own crime back on themselves.) Should a spouse whose partner is unfaithful also cheat? Should the victim become the criminal? Are we saying that two wrongs make a right? Should anyone who commits grievous bodily harm have the same injuries inflicted on them? There are some countries that do practice such a barbaric form of justice and anyone who would prefer to live in Saudi Arabia is free to do so. 3: Proponents of the death penalty always qualify their views by saying they only support it when we are absolutely sure he is guilty. I would remind those people that there is not a single convict in jail in the word today who has not been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. I would also remind people that there has never once been a execution in history where those doing the killing weren't sure that they had the right person. So the, "only when there's no doubt" position is self defeating. It implies that people are convicted when there is doubt. 4: After Christ gave us the words that I quoted above, do you know what happened next? THEY EXECUTED HIM! |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Adilah | Aug 9 2007, 07:50 AM Post #133 |
|
We have the death sentence for crimes of murder, drug trafficking and sometimes kidnapping. Proponents argue that it's very effective since we have so few murders and it's almost impossible to find illegal drugs. Opponents point out that since we have so few heinous crimes we don't need such drastic punishments. A recent Justice Minister said that if we didn't have the death sentence we'd have as much crime as the U.S.A., which is a little ironic since the U.S.A. has the death sentence. I'm against it. I don't think it's man's place to kill God's servants. If God wants someone dead, He doesn't need our help. If we put half as much energy into living together in love and peace as we do in finding better ways to kill each other we wouldn't need this discussion at all. |
| "We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æÑÍãÉ Çááå æÈÑßÇÊå | |
![]() |
|
| LITTLE LAURA | Aug 9 2007, 08:01 AM Post #134 |
![]()
|
I vowed to never enter a topic like this again, but Bill, I have NEVER read ANYthing put sooooooo well, or as eloquently, so I just have to say: Bravo !!! You are soooooooooooooooo right. I meant what I said about no longer joining debates such as these, but I'll leave the so-called pro--side with this: 1.) "THE THIN BLUE LINE" 2.) Randall Adams If you really believe this case is the only miscarriage of justice, then I have a bridge I can sell ya. 3.) Capital punishment is THE most grotesque version of "do as I say--not as I do" ---period. ................oh yeah. Bill referred to Christ/Jesus. You all are aware that HIS execution was L-E-G-A-L. What do you think most of the crowd were doing there? Certainly NOT to protest. I've seen the same chillingly grotesque scene repeated and repeated---outside prisons where an execution was about to/has taken place. The man tacked up on that cross would just weep at the positively terrifying animalistic demenor of that crowd, & at how little has changed. Once more Bill: BRAVO !!!
|
| |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Aug 9 2007, 09:26 AM Post #135 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
I realise that it's just a side-note but it can be surmised by a need for compassion for the people who are able to feel mental anguish and torment by an unwanted pregnancy, just as vegetarians feel compassion for the animals who are slaughtered for food & products. The two things aren't necessarily incompatible. We can continue the discussion on the appropriate thread if you want to talk about it more.
|
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| Mariele | Aug 9 2007, 10:52 AM Post #136 |
|
It's amazing you would think I am looking from the point of view of the killer. I am not. I am looking from the point of view of the human race. |
|
www.illustrationsbymariele.com www.wirelesstheatrecompany.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| Mariele | Aug 9 2007, 10:56 AM Post #137 |
|
Another brilliant post!
|
|
www.illustrationsbymariele.com www.wirelesstheatrecompany.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| Mariele | Aug 9 2007, 10:58 AM Post #138 |
|
Brilliant. |
|
www.illustrationsbymariele.com www.wirelesstheatrecompany.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2007, 03:18 PM Post #139 |
|
Deleted User
|
Double amen Mr Bellamy. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2007, 03:25 PM Post #140 |
|
Deleted User
|
Funny, when it comes to having "The Ten Commandments" at a court house, secular-progesives yell seperation of church and state. Until such a debate like this, then they want to quote the bible. Example; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" And the big one: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." |
|
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 9 2007, 09:19 PM Post #141 |
![]()
|
No...thats not what Gary was implying....he was just changing the words around so the shoe fits the OTHER foot....No accusations towards you!!!
Read all the posts.... Bill and Andy and EVERYONE who is against Capitol Punishment... I truly wish I could also feel that way.... because I hate killing and I hate violence....it all stinks... but I do feel that Capitol Punishment is just in SOME cases.... and Andy....I do read alot of books... but if you just turn the news on....you'll get a huge dose of how dangerous this world can be... Bill...kudos to your post...you put a lot of heart in that.... like I said...I wish murder did not exist...and serial killing and child killing..... but it does...and these monsters have forfeited all rights if they have tortured and killed a child or and adult...hell...I'd be tempted to give CP to someone who tortures and kills innocent animals... :angry: But anyway...I have to run....neither side will ever agree so I guess we'll just have to respect each other and agree to disagree!!!
C-yas tomorrow!!
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 10 2007, 01:29 AM Post #142 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think Bill has the bible in common with you, Dan, so he is very much entitled to use it in his argument, especially if he believes he will reach someone like you with it. But not everyone under the law of the courthouse is a Christian and therefore should not be forced to adhere to someone's interpretation of Christianity. It's a personal belief which should be used as such in, say, a debate about the death penalty. You won't see me use religious justification for my beliefs because I'm not religious! And thanks for not thinking we're nuts, by the way.
Val, I didn't know you were a vegetarian! Congratulations!
|
|
|
| LITTLE LAURA | Aug 10 2007, 02:42 AM Post #143 |
![]()
|
OOPS, I'm here again! Sigh......will I ever listen to me own advice? Do this a few times more & ya'll can start calling me Britney !!! Ah well, since I'm here, as Columbo used to say, one more thing:If this eye-for-an-eye and "deterrent" thingy worked so well................ .............how come we still have murder all these 2000 plus years later ? And DON'T say it's because it hasn't been carried out often enuff! Donja DARE! Quite aside from the grotesque "assembly-line" so-called "justice" Texas & a few other states have been practising lately, it's only relatively recently with respect to how long "Law & order" has been established, the practise has stopped. [At least for most civilized countries.]. Up until the early 1900s it was still not only being practised everywhere, but with a vengeance. [If you pardon the phraseology.] So I repeat, donja think over 2000 yrs. is long enuff to admit the strategy hasn't worked?.............and if you really believe so long as the number is [supposedly] small, an innocent life being taken doesn't bother you, [& what does that make you--since it does say people vs., etc, and you are one those "people" they're referring to], are you really willing to put your belief to the ultimate test? I'm talkin' about your OWN son/daughter, being convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death--and just accepting "they got the right guy". Because all those on death row, or will be, are someone else's son/daughter. And remember, you don't have to have done anything wrong to be wrongly convicted. If you're not, then you have NO business proclaiming it's so-called merits. BTW, PLEASE note the "you(s)" I refer to are not personal, merely metaphorical. Hey, Val! How ya been? How's your boy? [Just because I'm fervantly against it, doesn't mean I'm angry at you. Your're one who has always been able to separate the argument from the arguer, & I admire that.]..............just askin'................................. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 10 2007, 04:04 AM Post #144 |
|
Explain yourself Dan. Who are the so-called "secular progressives" you are referring to? I'm the one who quoted those things so why don't you show me what I have said about separation of church and state. Or are you just using phoney stereotypes again. I will not have aspersions cast on my faith by the likes of you! :angry: You don't a monopoly on Christian values you know! Not all of us choose to wear our faith like a t-shirt. :rolleyes: Just to put things in perspective, the person who coined the term "secular progressive" - whatever the hell that means - is the same person who took the line of The Lord's Prayer that I quoted and used it as a title for a soft porn novel.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 10 2007, 04:58 AM Post #145 |
|
It's an excellent question. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's law-and-order types, religious fundamentalists, terrorists, kings, queen or presidents, throughout history there has been a prevailing attitude that we will have a peaceful and happy world if we can just kill enough of the right people. When has that ever worked? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| mozart8mytoe | Aug 10 2007, 12:51 PM Post #146 |
|
That is how message boards work. You say you are always right and I am always wrong. I say that I am always right and you are always wrong. We tell each other how unbelievable it is that the other has no common sense and explain that any logical, intelligent person would clearly see things our way. Eventually someone mentions Hitler.
Maybe we have not yet killed enough of the right people. |
| Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 10 2007, 01:31 PM Post #147 |
|
By the way..... Val, Wanted to thank you for your kind words. I admire your ability to separate the point from the person and I respect your point of view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that while you support the death penalty in principle, you are repulsed by the need for it, and I understand that. It has to be said that whenever this topic comes up, there is as aspect of bloodlust among some supporters of the death penalty but it's important to remember that doesn't apply to all supporters. Many regard it as a necessary evil but not a fun thing to do and while I still vehemently disagree with that point of view, I can understand the reasoning behind it. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 10 2007, 01:38 PM Post #148 |
|
The voice of reason. :rolleyes: |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 10 2007, 02:24 PM Post #149 |
![]()
|
THANK YOU so much.... Nope..NO bloodlust here.....thanks for understanding my point of view...and yes, I completely respect and understand your's as well....like I said..I wish I had your point of view!
And LAURA!!!!! HIIIIIII!!! :lol: my son is doing FANTASTIC....I'll post a pic of him .... don't want to on this thread..it just seems WRONG...LMAO...I'll post it on the photo thread a bit later...still at work here.. Be back later!!
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 10 2007, 02:28 PM Post #150 |
![]()
|
respect and understanding on all sides.... we all have different opinions, thats all... some maybe a bit more vocal but it's all good... :lol:
Good FRIENDLY debates are healthy!!
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 10 2007, 04:20 PM Post #151 |
|
Deleted User
|
First of all Bill, it was not a personal attack, the secular progressives I was referring to live here in the US not Australia. My point was that you were making the same argument.
And where did I say you said any of those things? You never mentioned separation of church and state, so that just goes to show I was indeed referring to the others here that were making the same arrgument. I am not casting aspersions on you faith, to be honest, not cynical, I don't care what your faith is. You can believe or not believe what ever you choose. You can say that I am all you want. Another thing I have never used phoney stereotypes. I am sure you will argue that I have but let me stop you before you do for this reason. I will no longer be posting on this thread, or any others. I will be offline for sometime due to some personal family affairs I must attend to. That means I will not be near a computer to view or respond to them. I may be gone for somtime, may be a few weeks or a few months I am not sure. I bid "EVERYONE" good wishes. Yes Bill I said everyone that means you too. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| beatlechick | Aug 11 2007, 12:51 AM Post #152 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
I hope everything goes well for you, Dan. I do hope you check in from time to time. Good luck, my friend. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 11 2007, 04:32 AM Post #153 |
|
Well Dan, if you're going to make generalisations, you should not isolate an individual's post to reply to. I know you weren't attacking me personally but you were referring specifically to a post I had made and there was a clear inference that I was not being genuine. I still don't know what "secular progressive" is and to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do. Having said that, I wish you all the best with the affairs you need to see to. I hope everything works out well for you and yours.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Aug 11 2007, 11:23 PM Post #154 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
Bill, I live in the US (where this apparently takes place) and don't know what he means either. Can someone please let us know what it is? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 12 2007, 03:22 PM Post #155 |
|
Deleted User
|
Ok I had a few extra moments of free time before I have to leave for the airport, the airport called to inform me my flight was delayed by 4 hours, I did a search for “Secular Progressives” to see if I can find a definition for secular progressives since I don’t have time to read, type then post. Here is a link for wikipedia, it coincides with Bill O’Reilly’s book “Culture Warrior”. By the way all is well thanks for the kind words Beatlechick & Bill. I am going to visit my Abuelo (Grandpa), he is 90 yo and I want to spend time with him before God decides it’s time to come home. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_progressives “Secular Progressives" According to O'Reilly, "secular-progressives" are individuals who are not content with the current state of affairs in the United States. Secular-progressives wish to "mold [America] in the image of Western Europe." In Chapter 1, [1], O'Reilly describes secular-progressive goals as: • A sharing of the wealth by targeting the affluent for most of the government's revenue. • Lax school discipline on American children to promote their so-called liberties. • Naked hostility to religious values and their expression in public. • A "one-world" approach to foreign relations that would prevent the U.S. government from imposing a policy that would benefit America first. • A touchy-feely vision of our society that places individual self-expression and rights over self-sacrifice and adult responsibility. According to O'Reilly, "S-P" politicians are not willing to state these goals openly, as he believes that the citizens of the United States are not willing to openly accept the tenets of what he defines as the secular-progressive agenda. However, O'Reilly also says that he believes secular-progressivism is increasing in militancy, and that the American public have been largely unaware that this increase is taking place. Traditionalists O'Reilly defines a Traditionalist as someone who believes that the United States is, more often than not, a noble country that has made some mistakes. For O'Reilly, Traditionalists believe in the family unit and place emphasis on spirituality, selflessness, and charitable causes. He says that Traditionalists are not restricted to any one political ideology. While O'Reilly cites examples of Democrats that are also Traditionalists, including President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Joseph Lieberman, he believes that the Democratic Party is increasingly being taken over by the "S-P" Movement. Likewise, O'Reilly has also said that some far-right groups are not Traditionalists, such as some militia groups and the Klu Klux Klan since they want a fundamental overhaul of mainstream America's way of life. The Secular Progressive Movement The "Secular Progressive Movement" is a postulated group of Americans whose non-traditional ideals have become a talking point in recent years for conservative commentators. O'Reilly states that the movement is led by media billionaire George Soros who provides large amounts of money to liberal, and as O'Reilly defines them, secular-progressive organizations such as moveon.org. Although no organization defines itself as secular progressive or as part of a secular progressive movement, O'Reilly has identified the groups and organizations he considers apply to this label which include Hollywood liberals, Al Franken, UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) whom he considers a threat to traditional American society. Also, O'Reilly goes on to articulate the various members of the secular-progressive army. Specifically, he contends that the ACLU and similar legal organizations form the "shock troops," who have "blitzed the legal system" in an attempt to "secure secular policies without having to go to the ballot box." According to O'Reilly, these troops are aided and abetted by "mainstream media enablers," who provide "aid and comfort to the frontline troops and are invaluable in getting their message out to an even wider audience." Ok well, if any other questions or more clarity needed, it will have to wait awhile until I return. God bless everyone!!! Keep it real, and keep SF alive while I'm gone. Peace!
|
|
|
| Bill | Aug 12 2007, 03:30 PM Post #156 |
|
Enough said! Another figment of O'Reilly's imagination. Lest anyone think I'm being harsh, unless there are any references to the term that do not lead back to Bill O'Reilly, then I'm right aren't I?
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Aug 12 2007, 08:27 PM Post #157 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
According to Bill O'Reilly I guess I am a little bit of both. I do wish to see a one world thing as we all have a stake in what is going to happen since the American gov't sees fit to fight in Iraq with us lapping at the door of Iran, S Korea, most of the middle east, and now China. I would also like to see more charity being given to the people of those aforementioned and show more spirituality (not religious however), with acts of selflessness and kindness for one and all thrown in the mix. Otherwise I don't really see where this is appropriate for the death penalty issue. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 12 2007, 11:43 PM Post #158 |
|
Deleted User
|
Aw, shucks, you really think we're all those things?
|
|
|
| SherryO | Aug 13 2007, 08:49 PM Post #159 |
|
I disagree. If God is the kind of God that I think he/she is, which is to say "a kind, & benevolent God", he/she would make the distinction. |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Aug 14 2007, 06:00 AM Post #160 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
So exactly where do you make the distinction between being shot, stabbed, and drugged to death? These are all instruments of death meant to kill in the first place. It's not as if the dead person accidentally fell on the knife, thought the gun was a watergun, or laid on the table and said to stick the needle in their veins. Which exactly is murder and what isn't? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mariele | Aug 14 2007, 10:33 AM Post #161 |
|
No no, he WAS saying that I was looking from the point of view of the killer. Read the post again. |
|
www.illustrationsbymariele.com www.wirelesstheatrecompany.co.uk | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 14 2007, 12:19 PM Post #162 |
|
No, I changed your post around to show that things can be viewed from both angles, in other words it was a plea to look at at it from both sides. I suggest you read the post again and the context in which it was written. Whichever way you look at it, the victims of crime are not given the same thought as the killer in these situations. The thing I find amazing about this topic, is that the ANTI death penalty people seem to react as if the PRO death penalty people are barbaric and stupid. Only Bill seems to try to understand our point of view has has respect for that. Personally, I have respect for anyone's beliefs and points of view. What bothers me, is when, in a healthy debate, people absolutely refuse to, at least get inside the heads of their advisaries. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 14 2007, 12:28 PM Post #163 |
|
Whoa, steady on there. I respect the reasoning of the more measured proponents, but not the conclusion they come to. I still say it's fundamentally flawed and self-defeating.
|
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 14 2007, 12:51 PM Post #164 |
|
That is what I said Bill - you at least respect the reasoning, just as I can see the reasoning behind YOUR standpoint. It doesn't mean we have to neccesarily agree on these points - this argument has ALWAYS been a raw topic, but healthy respect in a debate such as this is a neccesity. There is no right, and no wrong - people have their own views - even the UK parliament recognises this in their voting system. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Aug 14 2007, 12:57 PM Post #165 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
I (respectfully) disagree that there is no right or wrong - sometimes there really is. I hear people say that when they are doing something considered fundamentally wrong by many people, that it is their opinion and that there is no 'right or wrong'. I think we can all agree that pre-meditated murder is wrong, for example. I'm not necessarily applying this point to this subject, but I certainly consider capital punishment to be wrong. |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 14 2007, 01:01 PM Post #166 |
|
You just proved my point Andy. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 14 2007, 01:08 PM Post #167 |
|
I was biting my tongue because I didn't want to seem ungracious when Gary is paying me a compliment but I agree Andy. Quite often there is a right and a wrong. Not in things to think but in things to do. We live in such an age of nuance that almost nothing is absolute. (pick over the irony of that sentence in your own time). No matter what the deed, there always seems to be a "yeah, but what about....?" lurking in there somewhere. Sometimes, it's good to break things down to their simplest components and just ask Is killing people right or wrong? |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| Bill | Aug 14 2007, 01:13 PM Post #168 |
|
Furthermore, I think if one is going to participate in a debate, it has to be on the premise that their point of view is right and the opposing viewpoint is wrong. There's nothing wrong with thinking that. It's not a case of favourite colour where all answers are equally valid. It's possible to respect and understand another's thought processes while still believing that person to be completely and utterly wrong in their conclusion. That's not disrespectful to the other person - it's just the nature of healthy debate. |
| Put a puppet on it. | |
![]() |
|
| JeffLynnesBeard | Aug 14 2007, 01:21 PM Post #169 |
|
Administrator & Moderator
|
Which particular point was that? |
| ...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. | |
![]() |
|
| mozart8mytoe | Aug 14 2007, 04:56 PM Post #170 |
|
Why all this Bill ass-kissing? He is, after all, a secular progressive. Although as a Catholic he would seem less than secular and since he is anti-abortion he would not be very progressive. Does this make him one of O'Reilly's culture warriors? I believe Mariele is not talking about the re-written quote, but about this:
|
| Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run. | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 14 2007, 05:10 PM Post #171 |
![]()
|
DAMN...this thread is STILL going strong!!!
NOT READING....NOT LOOKING.... I left here with a good feeling... I AM NOT LOOKING!!!
BYE BYE!! |
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| mozart8mytoe | Aug 14 2007, 05:25 PM Post #172 |
|
That gives us all something to think about. |
| Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run. | |
![]() |
|
| SherryO | Aug 14 2007, 06:52 PM Post #173 |
|
Certain "agressive" dog breeds are said to need to be "humanely" put to sleep because they cannot be rehabilitated, ie. pitbulls, but this isn't the same for humans who obviously enjoy killing other humans. I think that the God I believe in would make the distinction between a criminal stabbing someone to death, dismembering them, & dumping their body parts, & someone who has "put them to sleep"(for lack of a better term here). There are some people that should not be around other humans, period. So, should we keep them locked up in a tiny little room for the rest of their lives? Isn't that cruel? |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 14 2007, 07:05 PM Post #174 |
![]()
|
crap....ok...getting a little dragged in now.... Interesting post..... SOOOO....what is Capitol Punishment....we've been taught to think it's humanely putting someone to sleep...yes for lack of a better term..... or IS IT...keeping someone locked up in a tiny cell the rest of their lives...... I suppose...what gives us the right to keep someone locked up under terrible living conditions..... I still say that a deranged murderer sholud not be given the opportunity to kill again and the only way that can happen is CP..... killers DO get out of jail... If they are no longer alive..this cant happen...well..UNLESS you believe in an after life..but thats a whole other thread... :lol: |
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 14 2007, 07:21 PM Post #175 |
|
Good post, and I like the way you have pointed out that life incarceration is cruel too. As I have said before - we treat animals with more respect than humans. When they are terminally ill, we have them humanely put to sleep. When animals kill, we do the same because something has snapped, and they are not safe around other animals. I think I prefer to be a dog...hee hee.....
|
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| SherryO | Aug 14 2007, 07:27 PM Post #176 |
|
Thanks |
![]() |
|
| beatlechick | Aug 14 2007, 11:38 PM Post #177 |
|
In Paul's Arms!
|
Putting a human to sleep is a kinder way of saying being murdered. The person doing the killing can claim that all they want whether it be an actual murder, the master of the needle (either capital punishment or a drug enabler), or soldier at war, that all they are doing is putting the person to sleep but killing is killing no matter how pretty you make it. As for putting a breed of dog, or any animal, to sleep I guess that depends on how many they have killed. It upsets me greatly when an animal that is presumed to be dangerous is put to sleep because they may be a danger to humans when it is the human that is a danger to animals and themselves. Do I believe dangerous breeds should be around? NO. Unfortunately there already is a thread for this here. As for keeping prisoners in a small room and making them go crazy, we differ there. I would rather they be kept in a cell (as opposed to solitary confinement) where they do have access to other humans, food, and exercise. The place where they really go nuts is in a room to themselves, that is cruel. What would you rather do to a person, be it man or woman, who robs, who does blue-collar crimes, who fights? You want them killed too or put them in a cell where they may get some rehab? Some do! My brother did. And you failed the test I set before you. I asked about the distinction of being drugged to death and asked what the distinction is murder. I was thinking of three scenarios, one a drug addict who overdoses, the one who 'puts to sleep' a convict, and the last one a person who decides to put a terminally ill person out of their misery. Which is considered murder? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 02:04 PM Post #178 |
![]()
|
Did not realize this was a test.....at work now so briefly read your post....will be back later when I can give it better thought....
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 15 2007, 02:15 PM Post #179 |
|
Surely the answer to that is pretty straight forward. Murder is "unlawful killing", so it really depends what part of the world you are in as to the answer to that question. The drug addict is not murdered - if anything that is accidental suicide. Putting to sleep a convict depends on whether the death penalty is in force, and putting a terminally ill patient to sleep depends on the Euthanasia laws of the country in question. Personally I support the death penalty, and Euthanasia. Far from being barbaric, I actually feel those two laws would make our society more civilised. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 02:27 PM Post #180 |
![]()
|
yeah... :lol: hey....did you receive my e-mail from work...not sure our e-mail is working... :wacko: : |
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 15 2007, 02:32 PM Post #181 |
|
Yes I did sweetie. I'll mail you back to see if it is working OK. Did you get my mails - I sent TWO to greet you with? I think you did cos you seemed to answer me!! Hey... ILY!! |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 02:33 PM Post #182 |
![]()
|
Thanks honey!!! ILY!!
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| silver moondog II. | Aug 15 2007, 02:47 PM Post #183 |
|
totally against it. killing people is wrong. where I come from every 4-year old knows this. |
| Homepage of my Label | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 15 2007, 02:54 PM Post #184 |
|
Yes, It's a shame 30 year old serial killers don't know this too. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 03:46 PM Post #185 |
![]()
|
How sad and true!!! It's SO hard to understand the mindset of someone who actually gets a kick out of torturing and killing harmless beautiful children and animals... and of course adults , abuse and murder of children and animals is not tolorable in my mind... :angry: ..........I know the argument is how to DEAL with these evil assholes...
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| kink | Aug 15 2007, 03:58 PM Post #186 |
|
on again, off again
|
try to find what made them like that perhaps? |
|
Strawberry Fields: We put the FUN in dysfunctional. -BeatleBarb, 2007 | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 15 2007, 04:02 PM Post #187 |
|
And what will that achieve? Like animals, some peoples brains' misfunction. It is wrong to have these people in society. It is also cruel to the individual too. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| kink | Aug 15 2007, 04:30 PM Post #188 |
|
on again, off again
|
That is a very inhumane way of thinking, in my opinion. Because if that's the way it goes, then some people's bodies misfunction too, but we have medicine and doctors for them. Is that right or wrong? Are we going against nature by helping people who need it? I dont' think so. Same with people who have adjustment problems, are pathologically ill, are criminally insane. It is wrong to have these people in society?! They are part of this society you are referring to. And in many cases it is society that has made them what they are, so it is society's role to rehabilitate them/ help them/ find out what went wrong so as to prevent future similar acts. Getting rid of them helps no one. |
|
Strawberry Fields: We put the FUN in dysfunctional. -BeatleBarb, 2007 | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Bellamy | Aug 15 2007, 04:36 PM Post #189 |
|
And the victims? Did they ask for their bodies to misfunction? Did they ask to be killed? Did their extended family ask to live in torture for years? Once again, we seem to be so very willing and keen to help the perpetrators of these horrific crimes. Some people, as with some animals, are beyond help. I'm all for rehabilitation, but some people forfeit their human rights on this issue. |
| Through our love, we can do things that they said were impossible. | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 04:39 PM Post #190 |
![]()
|
THESE are the kind of people I believe MUST have CP!!! And don't YOU have the million dollar question...evrey case is different!! have a read: "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please..." In Without Conscience Robert Hare argues convincingly that "psychopath" and "antisocial personality disorder" (a psychiatric term defined by a cluster of criminal behaviors) are not the same thing. Not all psychopaths are criminals, he says, and not all criminals are psychopaths. He proposes a psychopathy checklist that includes emotional/interpersonal traits such as glibness, grandiosity, lack of guilt, and shallow emotions, as well as social deviance traits such as impulsiveness, lack of responsibility, and antisocial behavior. His writing is lucid and illustrated with numerous anecdotes. The final chapter, "A Survival Guide," is especially recommended: as Hare writes, "Psychopaths are found in every segment of society, and there is a good chance that eventually you will have a painful or humiliating encounter with one." --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. From Publishers Weekly This work of pop psychology merits attention because Hare has pioneered in the field of psychopathy, which is still in a formative state. Psychopaths, he asserts, are neither sociopaths nor psychotics but rather are people who are well aware of the difference between right and wrong and ignore the distinction. Additionally, they are egocentric and have no feelings of empathy, guilt or remorse. They view others as potential victims, and they leave a trail of unhappiness behind them in those who have succumbed to their deceitful manipulations. Whether nature or nurture underlies their aberration is still uncertain; they are almost impossible to treat, according to Hare, because they are convinced that they have no psychological or emotional problems. Although, as he notes, much of the literature on psychopathy is scientific, Hare here presents material in a form accessible to lay readers. Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. here is the link.....many books written about these ruthless non-humans http://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-D...4056447-6321720 |
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 04:40 PM Post #191 |
![]()
|
Read my post above Kink....
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| silver moondog II. | Aug 15 2007, 04:41 PM Post #192 |
|
very true! I personally think that people who always go on about "misfunctioning brains" and who are constantly using words like "evil" or "Monster" to decribe criminals and their cruel actions are just too afraid to admit that everybody has a dark side... I mean it`s all about psychology; it`s about understanding and controling certain aspects of human nature... not about erasing people. |
| Homepage of my Label | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 04:43 PM Post #193 |
![]()
|
You read my post above too...if YOU have that kind of darkside... ya scare the hell outta me...
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| kink | Aug 15 2007, 04:45 PM Post #194 |
|
on again, off again
|
I am not insensitive towards the victims, and I believe that families and friends of victims need as much help as the perpetrators. But in cases of murder, there is nothing to be done about the victims themselves, is there? While there are many things to be done about the offenders. Even studying them and their behaviour can be good for further prevention. |
|
Strawberry Fields: We put the FUN in dysfunctional. -BeatleBarb, 2007 | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 04:48 PM Post #195 |
![]()
|
"Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please..." In Without Conscience Robert Hare argues convincingly that "psychopath" and "antisocial personality disorder" (a psychiatric term defined by a cluster of criminal behaviors) are not the same thing. Not all psychopaths are criminals, he says, and not all criminals are psychopaths. He proposes a psychopathy checklist that includes emotional/interpersonal traits such as glibness, grandiosity, lack of guilt, and shallow emotions, as well as social deviance traits such as impulsiveness, lack of responsibility, and antisocial behavior. His writing is lucid and illustrated with numerous anecdotes. The final chapter, "A Survival Guide," is especially recommended: as Hare writes, "Psychopaths are found in every segment of society, and there is a good chance that eventually you will have a painful or humiliating encounter with one." --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. I pray you or your family NEVER run across one of these people...
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| kink | Aug 15 2007, 04:49 PM Post #196 |
|
on again, off again
|
I did. I'm a criminologist, I've read much worse
|
|
Strawberry Fields: We put the FUN in dysfunctional. -BeatleBarb, 2007 | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 04:55 PM Post #197 |
![]()
|
Are you REALLY??? I'm fascinated in criminology...... profilers....absolutely fascinated...do you work with the police dept ? Do you do profiling? You've probably read the book "Gift of Fear" as well.... I"m surprised you're not pro-CP in these extreme cases?
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| kink | Aug 15 2007, 05:03 PM Post #198 |
|
on again, off again
|
well I am not yet, still have a couple of semesters to get my degree, but I will be.
I've done profiling, yes, it's very fascinating indeed. I don't support the death penalty in any case, I'm afraid. I don't know if it's right or wrong, I mean this always goes down to personal opinion, but I have always considered it barbaric, extreme and useless. We don't have it here, either, so I have grown up somewhere where it is not tolerated.
|
|
Strawberry Fields: We put the FUN in dysfunctional. -BeatleBarb, 2007 | |
![]() |
|
| Blondie10 | Aug 15 2007, 05:11 PM Post #199 |
![]()
|
I'd considered getting into that field but I'm to soft... I REALLY don't think I could handle the horror of it all.... reading and actually SEEING the scene of a crime are TOTALLY different... But the BEST of luck to you.... I still believe in CP in the Extreme cases... My 13 year old has shown an interest in this field as well....but then he's also said he wants to be archeologist.....
|
| There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams <a href='http://eapr-1/@' target='_blank'></a> | |
![]() |
|
| kink | Aug 15 2007, 05:18 PM Post #200 |
|
on again, off again
|
thank you Yes it takes pretty strong stomachs for these kinds of jobs and mine has done pretty well so far but you never know...
|
|
Strawberry Fields: We put the FUN in dysfunctional. -BeatleBarb, 2007 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic » |






We just don't wear rose colored glasses and see the world for what it really is....a BEAUTIFUL place ...that sometimes MUST have harsh rules.... and that most humans are GOOD and NOT evil.... but this aint the wild west....law and order are necessary...we all just disagree on the way to acheive law and order....




Ah well, since I'm here, as Columbo used to say, one more thing:
Quite aside from the grotesque "assembly-line" so-called "justice" Texas & a few other states have been practising lately, it's only relatively recently with respect to how long "Law & order" has been established, the practise has stopped. [At least for most civilized countries.]. Up until the early 1900s it was still not only being practised everywhere, but with a vengeance. [If you pardon the phraseology.] So I repeat, donja think over 2000 yrs. is long enuff to admit the strategy hasn't worked?

2:24 PM Jul 11