StoneyBologna: Not trolling. Dead serious.

Please explain to me how you justify killing someone or harming someone to show that killing or harming someone is inherently wrong.

If you're saying that you'll stoop down to their level, that's fine. But then you're just as bad. If you can't see that I can't help you.

So we went from "inflicting pain and suffering is wrong" to "why kill the guy" ?

Someone has found their argument is tarded.
If someone kills people, he should be erased from society. But if you are willing to house him up at your place because he is only 'misunderstood' go right ahead...

StoneyBologna: Oh and I love everyones' ethics on this thread.

I'D HAVE BEAT HIM UNCONSCIOUS AND BURNED HIS HOUSE DOWN!

LET HIM BLEED TO DEATH!

EUTHANASIA IS TOO KIND! TORTURE THE BASTARD!

Cool, guys. Causing pain and suffering is wrong, and should be punished! ....by....pain and suffering? Smart!

Yeah yeah you're so much better than us, you don't have the base human instincts the rest of us possess. Congratulations. How's life up on that pedestal?

StoneyBologna: Not trolling. Dead serious.

Please explain to me how you justify killing someone or harming someone to show that killing or harming someone is inherently wrong.

If you're saying that you'll stoop down to their level, that's fine. But then you're just as bad. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Torturing him would be wrong, but I don't think he was worth the resources it took to save him from his own suicide attempt.

StoneyBologna: Not trolling. Dead serious.

Please explain to me how you justify killing someone or harming someone to show that killing or harming someone is inherently wrong.

If you're saying that you'll stoop down to their level, that's fine. But then you're just as bad. If you can't see that I can't help you.

You're obviously making the assumption that everyone born into this world deserves to be here. That's where the flaw in your logic resides.

MmmBadEggs: StoneyBologna: Oh and I love everyones' ethics on this thread.

I'D HAVE BEAT HIM UNCONSCIOUS AND BURNED HIS HOUSE DOWN!

LET HIM BLEED TO DEATH!

EUTHANASIA IS TOO KIND! TORTURE THE BASTARD!

Cool, guys. Causing pain and suffering is wrong, and should be punished! ....by....pain and suffering? Smart!

Yeah yeah you're so much better than us, you don't have the base human instincts the rest of us possess. Congratulations. How's life up on that pedestal?

If it wasn't for the rest of us "senseless killers" protecting the rest of society from psychopaths, the likes of this a-hole would have been Darwined out of existence a few hundred years ago.

Stun gun to the nuts.

Marla Singer's Laundry: It's "mixed UP with coke". Doesn't make a lick of sense without the "up".

6 year old mixed with coke sounds like a good photoshop contest.

StoneyBologna: Not trolling. Dead serious.

Please explain to me how you justify killing someone or harming someone to show that killing or harming someone is inherently wrong.

If you're saying that you'll stoop down to their level, that's fine. But then you're just as bad. If you can't see that I can't help you.

People like this seldom rehabilitate. Their mere existence is a threat to society's weaker members. I say we get rid of him before he strikes again.

/pro-choice all the way to age 100. If you make it that far, f*ck it, collect your $200.

Holy crap the joke is real.

I saw a car the other day with a sticker of pedobear on it.

/no more to say, just wanted to share

Accent: I suppose a slap on the wrist and a good stern talking to will prevent this guy from injecting your daughter with a (potentially dirty.. and capable of ruining her entire life) needle before he attempts to rape her.

Yes, that is exactly what he's arguing. We should just send him free and shower him with roses. But then again, judging from the rest of your rant, you don't strike me as a master of reading comprehension or reasoning abilities.

Get this through your thick skull, not being blood-thirty about "punishment" != preventing the guy from entering society.

And you know... since he is your neighbor, you will be comforted to know that everything is ok now.. because he is getting treatment and will never pose a threat to your family again.

Meaningless scare tactics and a strawman, nice.

The ONLY thing that deters crime is punishment.

This would be why the U.S. with one of the most severe systems of punishment among industrialized nations, also has the highest crime rate right? This is why state with capital punishment don't show any significantly lower (in most cases higher) crime rates as states that don't right? The idea that fear of punishment somehow deters crime has been historically and statistically shot down as nothing but myth so many times by people who actually look at data instead of just listening to "well, my gut feels it's this way" that I'm surprised any dumbfark actually brings it up. But I guess truthiness is enough for some.

Hell, if I could go out and commit a crime and know I would only get counseling afterwards... there are quite a few I have in mind I would want to try.

You're projecting your own farked up mindset on the rest of us. Most of us are actually good people, not a dickwad.

We don't trust government to ever tell us what to do, what type of guns we can own, what religion we have to follow, run anything productively or generally be compitant in any field. But we are right behind them when it come to giving them control over who lives or dies.

I'll never understand that.

And by government I am including the elected judges who will rule on cases, the elected sherrifs who will gather the evidence and the elected officials who pass the laws that let them do it.

Level22: Troll-fu is strong with this one! Seriously...some things just require death, and some quicker than others. I wouldn't want to hurt him, just a quick double-tap to the head. Done. Things like that shouldn't be alive.

Nothing "requires" death. What it does require is to make sure people like this never have access to the rest of society. Now, if you wanna argue that life imprisonment is somehow unachievable and the only alternative short of just letting him free was the death penalty, *that* may be justification.

imgod2u: Accent: I suppose a slap on the wrist and a good stern talking to will prevent this guy from injecting your daughter with a (potentially dirty.. and capable of ruining her entire life) needle before he attempts to rape her.

Yes, that is exactly what he's arguing. We should just send him free and shower him with roses. But then again, judging from the rest of your rant, you don't strike me as a master of reading comprehension or reasoning abilities.

Get this through your thick skull, not being blood-thirty about "punishment" != preventing the guy from entering society.



And your entire rant is based on you thinking that locking someone up is *not* punishment?

Nice work, Holmes.

Joe Hallenbeck: Newt13: davynelson: I read about this yesterday, it broke my heart as usual.

He did let her go, told her he was going to die today, not her.
Then she ran to get help, cops were called.

Mom had left her to play on her own outside, and as the father of one of her playmates, he'd told her to come and see their gerbils or something.

Leonard called the alleged attack "a one-time aberration' and said that, if released, Shine would pose no further threat to the community.

KILL IT WITH FIRE

Come to think of it, where were his gerbils?

Richard Gere borrowed them for the day.

So he was going to introduce her to richard gere"s butt?

Purplebuzz: We don't trust government to ever tell us what to do, what type of guns we can own, what religion we have to follow, run anything productively or generally be compitant in any field. But we are right behind them when it come to giving them control over who lives or dies.

I'll never understand that.

And by government I am including the elected judges who will rule on cases, the elected sherrifs who will gather the evidence and the elected officials who pass the laws that let them do it.

I agree with that, but I also think it's a problem: the longer we hold onto the notion that there's no such thing as an efficient or productive public sector, the worse the government will get. We can do better, and we really, really need to.

I know this is OT but it strikes a nerve with me: the whole argument about whether big government or small government is better misses the whole point that good government should be priority 1.

Level22: StoneyBologna: Oh and I love everyones' ethics on this thread.

I'D HAVE BEAT HIM UNCONSCIOUS AND BURNED HIS HOUSE DOWN!

LET HIM BLEED TO DEATH!

EUTHANASIA IS TOO KIND! TORTURE THE BASTARD!


Cool, guys. Causing pain and suffering is wrong, and should be punished! ....by....pain and suffering? Smart!

Troll-fu is strong with this one! Seriously...some things just require death, and some quicker than others. I wouldn't want to hurt him, just a quick double-tap to the head. Done. Things like that shouldn't be alive.

/that is all


When a dog gets sick or rabid and can't be around people anymore, you put it down.

There's no difference here. None at all. Some people might like to think so, but when it boils down to it, we're just glorified primates.

Monkey escapes from a zoo and bites several people? You put it down. Man kidnaps a 5 year old girl, shoots her full of cocaine and tries to rape her? You put him down. It's all very simple.

JRoo: You know coke is just going to make them twitchy and full of energy.

Probably why roofies are the preferred drug for would-be victims of rape.

She's small enough that the extra energy can only help me him.


What?

what_now: There should be more bruises.

Perhaps there are more bruises. Hopefully he got a shiatload of cockpunches

farm machine: You're obviously making the assumption that everyone born into this world deserves to be here. That's where the flaw in your logic resides.

You're obviously making the assumption that people need to "deserve" to live. If someone dies because you caused it, you've killed someone. I don't care what your excuses are, you killed another human being. It lowers you.

Well at least we know he won't make it two weeks in prison...

Raug the Dwarf: When a dog gets sick or rabid and can't be around people anymore, you put it down.

There's no difference here. None at all. Some people might like to think so, but when it boils down to it, we're just glorified primates.

Monkey escapes from a zoo and bites several people? You put it down. Man kidnaps a 5 year old girl, shoots her full of cocaine and tries to rape her? You put him down. It's all very simple.

I can actually get behind that rationale. I might argue that human life is worth more than a dog's life but the rationale that it's simply to prevent said person from doing further harm, I can get behind. Revenge -- which most of this thread seems to thrive under -- I cannot excuse.

imgod2u: Level22: Troll-fu is strong with this one! Seriously...some things just require death, and some quicker than others. I wouldn't want to hurt him, just a quick double-tap to the head. Done. Things like that shouldn't be alive.

Nothing "requires" death. What it does require is to make sure people like this never have access to the rest of society. Now, if you wanna argue that life imprisonment is somehow unachievable and the only alternative short of just letting him free was the death penalty, *that* may be justification.

I'd say that life without parole is just a weak-willed death penalty. You've already sworn off on that individual's opportunity to redeem himself and ever re-enter society, but you're too squeamish, so you have to wait and wait and wait and wait for nature to pull the trigger? Please. Just because the blood isn't on your hands doesn't make it different.

I haven't made up my mind about the death penalty, but I have decided that if I oppose it 100% on moral grounds, then the consistent ethic is to oppose life without parole too.

opposing it on the grounds that if we make a mistake it can't be undone is different, IMO.

StoneyBologna: Not trolling. Dead serious.

Please explain to me how you justify killing someone or harming someone to show that killing or harming someone is inherently wrong.

If you're saying that you'll stoop down to their level, that's fine. But then you're just as bad. If you can't see that I can't help you.

As a matter of disclosure, I'm generally not for the death penalty. I think we've complicated matters too much with the appeals process and various methods to make death more humane.

Most people don't want to die - for the most part even religious folks (non-fanatical) recognize that life down here isn't all that bad. Thus, the theory goes that if an act is heinous enough to be punished by death, others will not commit the same act.

This is generally flawed logic at its best, as some people -- as we are well aware -- do not have a problem with death, nor can they bring themselves from stopping a crime: The urge to kill is greater than the probability of an untimely death.

So in theory I do not think the death penalty is a an effective deterrent for others, however, I believe it is an effective punishment when the crime committed is so heinous that it violates all of our genetic coding that got us to the twenty-first century: Protect the children.

It is not a matter of stooping to another person's level, but protecting our future resources from predation by horrific humans. There is no reason to torture, just an immediate end to protect our society.

PJ_the_Barbarian: I know this is OT but it strikes a nerve with me: the whole argument about whether big government or small government is better misses the whole point that good government should be priority 1.

Throughout history, many have tried under some delusion to build a better government. They all failed. Then some guys came along and realized that anytime you put power in the hands of a few, you'll get the same thing. So they had this novel idea: make it as small as possible to get by.

FarkinHostile: BadSpongeBob

I've never actually tortured and killed anyone, but I like to think I could easily do so to monsters like this, and still sleep at night.


"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

Friedrich Nietzsche

OOOOOOH, you can google a German philospher's quotes.

Do you have an opinion?

Yeah, don't battle monsters and don't look in dark holes. Thanks.

How about DON'T SHOOT UP LITTLE KIDS WITH DRUGS AND TRY TO RAPE THEM!!!

Unfortunately, he'll end up in a hospital, with three squares and top notch medical treatment for life...on our dime.

Fantastic.

FTA: "His attempt to commit suicide shows that he is certainly mentally unbalanced," Donatelle said.

Um... Wouldn't drugging and raping 6 year olds suggest that? You know, actually, attempting suicide afterwards may suggest less mental imbalance.

imgod2u:
This would be why the U.S. with one of the most severe systems of punishment among industrialized nations, also has the highest crime rate right? This is why state with capital punishment don't show any significantly lower (in most cases higher) crime rates as states that don't right? The idea that fear of punishment somehow deters crime has been historically and statistically shot down as nothing but myth so many times by people who actually look at data instead of just listening to "well, my gut feels it's this way" that I'm surprised any dumbfark actually brings it up. But I guess truthiness is enough for some.


Also, I am going to propose an argument to why the US has a high crime rate compared to other nations:
1) there is a shiat-load of things here that people find valuable and people want for themselves
2) 'americans' are selfish by nature and do not want to work for what they have, so they steal it
3) there is a hell of a lot more diversity here in cultures - creating more crimes... and the formation of gangs
4)comparing the US to any other 'industrialized' nation for crime rates is flawed from the beginning because the United States is where many people come for quick prosperity... and most go to extremes to get it

If there was no PUNISHMENT for crimes, more would be committed - end of story.

Not a refined argument, but it gets the point across.

imgod2u: farm machine: You're obviously making the assumption that everyone born into this world deserves to be here. That's where the flaw in your logic resides.

You're obviously making the assumption that people need to "deserve" to live. If someone dies because you caused it, you've killed someone. I don't care what your excuses are, you killed another human being. It lowers you.

Lowers? By whose standards, in what situation?

"His attempt to commit suicide shows that he is certainly mentally unbalanced,' Donatelle said.

No, I think that proves he was sane. Do you think he will get better treatment in prison?

at least

StoneyBologna: Not trolling. Dead serious.

Please explain to me how you justify killing someone or harming someone to show that killing or harming someone is inherently wrong.

If you're saying that you'll stoop down to their level, that's fine. But then you're just as bad. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Stooping down only if Mr Shine is 6 not 26

japlemon: OOOOOOH, you can google a German philospher's quotes.

Do you have an opinion?

Yeah, don't battle monsters and don't look in dark holes. Thanks.

How about DON'T SHOOT UP LITTLE KIDS WITH DRUGS AND TRY TO RAPE THEM!!!

Unfortunately, he'll end up in a hospital, with three squares and top notch medical treatment for life...on our dime.

Fantastic.

The point being missed!

imgod2u: PJ_the_Barbarian: I know this is OT but it strikes a nerve with me: the whole argument about whether big government or small government is better misses the whole point that good government should be priority 1.

Throughout history, many have tried under some delusion to build a better government. They all failed. Then some guys came along and realized that anytime you put power in the hands of a few, you'll get the same thing. So they had this novel idea: make it as small as possible to get by.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a small-government man by nature. I think it's better. But I look at France, and I think, "Compared to us, they have a reasonably competent and effective public sector. Its size stifles entrepreneurship and its labor policies saddle it with 10% unemployment, but it still manages to function and govern a sizable economy. If we tried to expand the government to French proportions, here, with our attitude towards competent government, we'd wind up with at least 15% unemployment and we'd accomplish a lot less."

If there's no such thing as effective government, there's certainly such a thing as "less incompetent than it could be."

Consider the current regulatory environment: too much of the wrong kind of regulations and not enough of the right kind. One political party is saying add the right kind without getting rid of the stupid and onerous variety, and the other side is saying just get rid of the bad ones without adding some good ones. It's idiotic.

PJ_the_Barbarian: I'd say that life without parole is just a weak-willed death penalty.

You'd be wrong. You're not killing a human being. Life and death aren't shades of gray. There's no "partly living" unless you're Tim Burton or Joan Collins.

You've already sworn off on that individual's opportunity to redeem himself and ever re-enter society, but you're too squeamish, so you have to wait and wait and wait and wait for nature to pull the trigger?

Yes, having a hard principle: I will never kill another human being obviously makes me "squeamish" and "weak". I'm sorry, is my shait all retarded and am I talking like a fag?

Please. Just because the blood isn't on your hands doesn't make it different.

Actually, it does. The lack of blood would be the difference.

I haven't made up my mind about the death penalty, but I have decided that if I oppose it 100% on moral grounds, then the consistent ethic is to oppose life without parole too.

It is in no way consistent. Equating life imprisonment with death is like equating "natural food flavoring" with actual food. In the one, you're confining a person to a space separate from society. In the other, you're killing that person. Access to society != life. Human beings aren't defined by their jobs, friends, social connections, etc. They have intrinsic value.

imgod2u: farm machine: You're obviously making the assumption that everyone born into this world deserves to be here. That's where the flaw in your logic resides.

You're obviously making the assumption that people need to "deserve" to live. If someone dies because you caused it, you've killed someone. I don't care what your excuses are, you killed another human being. It lowers you.

People need to learn that there are consequences to their actions. Dire actions call for dire consequences. With life in prison comes the hope of escape - whether that is truly an escape or being released for some reason. Death is a hopeless consequence. Once you've entered that state there is no escaping it. There are a number of crimes that are so heinous that by committing them you forfeit your right to consume oxygen.

what_now: There should be more bruises.

That's some VERY fine police work there Lou.

Wow. More torture-revenge fantasies here than on Fox Nation...
What's wrong with you people?

Huck Chaser: StoneyBologna: Not trolling. Dead serious.

Please explain to me how you justify killing someone or harming someone to show that killing or harming someone is inherently wrong.

If you're saying that you'll stoop down to their level, that's fine. But then you're just as bad. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Torturing him would be wrong, but I don't think he was worth the resources it took to save him from his own suicide attempt.

I doubt the even really saved him. All the article says is he slit his wrists. Any overdramatic 15 year old can tell you from experience that you can live through that. I guarantee this dumbass went across the road, not up the highway.

I like my women like I like my whiskey...

21 or older, Irish, on the rocks, and not blended....

imgod2u: You'd be wrong. You're not killing a human being. Life and death aren't shades of gray. There's no "partly living" unless you're Tim Burton or Joan Collins.

farm machine: People need to learn that there are consequences to their actions. Dire actions call for dire consequences. With life in prison comes the hope of escape.

I'd say that's a flaw in the implementation, not the principle. The principle of life imprisonment is that you are there for life. The fact that our legal system may allow an avenue for release -- other than evidence that proves the person's innocence -- is a flaw of the legal system, not of the idea of life imprisonment.

And the idea that "dire consequences" somehow deters crime has been statistically disproved by every state that's tried it and gotten absolutely no decline in such crimes. I'm surprised anyone still tries to bring this "truthiness" up.

japlemon

OOOOOOH, you can google a German philospher's quotes.


Actually, I can quote that one from memory. It is a very important concept, one that many here who are fantasizing about torturing need to think about.

I do a lot of Albert Einstein and Robert A. Heinlein quotes, too. Without google most of the time, but I do copy and paste when I want to be totally accurate.

Do you have an opinion?

All sorts of opinions, but most of them are none of your business.

Yeah, don't battle monsters and don't look in dark holes. Thanks.

Now I understand; you do not have the ability to comprehend the meaning(s). Too bad, but typical, really. You should work on that. Lots of real life application.


How about DON'T SHOOT UP LITTLE KIDS WITH DRUGS AND TRY TO RAPE THEM!!!

Poor quote with very limited application. The caps lock yelling was particularly telling regarding your emotional state. I do agree with the sentiment, though.


Unfortunately, he'll end up in a hospital, with three squares and top notch medical treatment for life...on our dime.


Prison medical treatment top notch? Really?

Wait wait wait!

I've got it. Life in prison is too much of a drain on society. The death penalty is too harsh for some. But there's a third option. We find a remote island and send all our violent criminals there.


Antarctica works for me

FarkinHostile:


Prison medical treatment top notch? Really?

I'd take it over any HMO, hands down. It's probably better than what a lot of Americans have right now.

PJ_the_Barbarian: on't get me wrong: I'm a small-government man by nature. I think it's better. But I look at France, and I think, "Compared to us, they have a reasonably competent and effective public sector. Its size stifles entrepreneurship and its labor policies saddle it with 10% unemployment, but it still manages to function and govern a sizable economy. If we tried to expand the government to French proportions, here, with our attitude towards competent government, we'd wind up with at least 15% unemployment and we'd accomplish a lot less."

When comparing a government system the size of France to one the size of the U.S., one can't really expect the same results. The problem with even a perfect government is that it still has an inherent bureaucracy that grows in complexity and cost in direct proportion to population and nation size.

From an engineering perspective, at some size of a population, even in the ideal case, this is inherently less efficient than a cluster, peer-to-peer based arbitration system.

Communism works in small tribes too. It doesn't work with a large population.

If there's no such thing as effective government, there's certainly such a thing as "less incompetent than it could be."

I'd rather create a system that is designed not to fail rather than patch it up to be "less incompetent".

Consider the current regulatory environment: too much of the wrong kind of regulations and not enough of the right kind. One political party is saying add the right kind without getting rid of the stupid and onerous variety, and the other side is saying just get rid of the bad ones without adding some good ones. It's idiotic.

It's the inherent result of having a few people whose interests are not the same as that of the general population in power. It will always happen, always.

japlemon: Wait wait wait!

I've got it. Life in prison is too much of a drain on society. The death penalty is too harsh for some. But there's a third option. We find a remote island and send all our violent criminals there.


Antarctica works for me

Didn't the British try this?

imgod2u:

Some good points. Allow me to further explain where I'm coming from: I think that when you confine a person until death, you are declaring that this person's life is harmful to society and always will be harmful to society, and that you have decided to permanently terminate his ability to interact with society.

I think that this is inconsistent with the concepts of punishment and rehabilitation, which the penal system at least pays lip-service to on many occasions.

I think that sentencing someone to life without parole, if that person is capable of rehabilitation, is a disservice to that person. I think that it is similar to sentencing that person to die. I, personally, would not choose to draw the line that separates what I consider acceptable and what I consider unacceptable between the two. You are welcome to disagree.

Really, I'm arguing for life without parole to be replaced with life with a parole that's pretty hard to get.

Marla Singer's Laundry: I think this POS deserves the anal pear.

Seriously.

Well then you should pry it from your vagina.

imgod2u: And the idea that "dire consequences" somehow deters crime has been statistically disproved by every state that's tried it and gotten absolutely no decline in such crimes. I'm surprised anyone still tries to bring this "truthiness" up.

The beauty of "statistics" is that they can be spun to support virtually anyone position. When looking at crime rates were factors such as increase in population, significant civil events and other mitigating factors considered? The statistics could very well have been similar to the ones they use for alcohol related accidents. If I'm drunk and sitting in my parked car with the engine off and someone hits me, guess what? Alcohol related accident.

Take a look at the crime rates and recidivism rates in say Saudi Arabia. Pretty sure they would support the fact that swift and severe penalties work.