imgod2u: Didn't the British try this?

Austria isn't an island.

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.

Does that mean that if I kill a bug, I'm lowered to its level? Wouldn't killing another human actually prove that the killer is the more superior life form?

/;o)

PJ_the_Barbarian: 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 agree. I think of life imprisonment like the old-style exiling. It's a perfectly logical response of society: you sign a contract to be a sane person and follow our laws to live amongst us, if you don't, you forfeit your right to *be amongst us*. That's the social contract.

I think that sentencing someone to life without parole, if that person is capable of rehabilitation, is a disservice to that person.

I disagree. I think everyone is entitled to life; human life has intrinsic value. I don't think everyone is entitled to live in society. Social interaction is a contract. You agree to abide by society's laws and society, in return, interacts with you. If you breach that contract, it is entirely at the mercy of society whether or not it wants to offer you a "second chance". I think it's nice to allow some type of rehabilitation, but I don't think it's a moral imperative.

I think that it is similar to sentencing that person to die.

There I will disagree vehemently. A person's life is not simply his interactions with society; a man living alone on an island is just as much of a human being -- and his life worth as much value -- as an executive managing a business in NYC. To remove a person's access to society, therefore, is entirely separate and tangent to taking his life.

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

I'm personally all for bringing back exiling. I know that space in this world's hard to come by but it's ultimately the fairest thing to do. You give him a chance to make a new life, but he can't do so within our borders because he's demonstrated he cannot be trusted.

When you forfeit society's rules, you forfeit society's protections and benefits. That doesn't mean you don't have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

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

Fine, you can hold the whip

On one hand it seems that we have a number (majority) of people here that want this guy dead.....yet are probably against the death penalty.

On the other you have people (1 person?) who wants our tax money to support this guy living for the next 50 years (possible) in prison (~$4 million dollars, ~$80,000 per yr).

Whereas japlemon has the best idea put them somewhere remote....like the big garbage dump floating in a Pacific. Only cost is getting him/them out there. Then let'm fend for themselves.

imgod2u: PJ_the_Barbarian: 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 agree. I think of life imprisonment like the old-style exiling. It's a perfectly logical response of society: you sign a contract to be a sane person and follow our laws to live amongst us, if you don't, you forfeit your right to *be amongst us*. That's the social contract.

I think that sentencing someone to life without parole, if that person is capable of rehabilitation, is a disservice to that person.

I disagree. I think everyone is entitled to life; human life has intrinsic value. I don't think everyone is entitled to live in society. Social interaction is a contract. You agree to abide by society's laws and society, in return, interacts with you. If you breach that contract, it is entirely at the mercy of society whether or not it wants to offer you a "second chance". I think it's nice to allow some type of rehabilitation, but I don't think it's a moral imperative.

I think that it is similar to sentencing that person to die.

There I will disagree vehemently. A person's life is not simply his interactions with society; a man living alone on an island is just as much of a human being -- and his life worth as much value -- as an executive managing a business in NYC. To remove a person's access to society, therefore, is entirely separate and tangent to taking his life.

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

I'm personally all for bringing back exiling. I know that space in this world's hard to come by but it's ultimately the fairest thing to do. You give him a chance to make a new life, but he can't do so within our borders because he's demonstrated he cannot be trusted.

When you forfeit society's rules, you forfeit society's protections and benefits. That doesn't mean you don't have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

interesting.

farm machine: 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.

That's what we're missing, and it's really, really important.

farm machine: When looking at crime rates were factors such as increase in population, significant civil events and other mitigating factors considered?

Do you know that crime rates is expressed in percentage of population? And did you know that *every* state in the U.S. generally receives the same overall social trends and experiences these "mitigating factors" and yet, States that implement a death penalty see no tangible result in violent crimes that are punishable by death?

Please spare me the "but but you're not sure". You decided to make a "my gut tells me" claim that threatening people with death -- people who are farked up enough in the head to slaughter others -- is somehow a deterrent and I pointed out the BS.

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.

They're just blowing off steam. Most of them are pussies who wouldn't do shiat but run to the phone and call the police...and there's nothing wrong with doing that. So, I'm not sure why there's always a need to go internet Rambo.

Its just the way they express their disgust.

imgod2u: PJ_the_Barbarian: 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 agree. I think of life imprisonment like the old-style exiling. It's a perfectly logical response of society: you sign a contract to be a sane person and follow our laws to live amongst us, if you don't, you forfeit your right to *be amongst us*. That's the social contract.

I think that sentencing someone to life without parole, if that person is capable of rehabilitation, is a disservice to that person.

I disagree. I think everyone is entitled to life; human life has intrinsic value. I don't think everyone is entitled to live in society. Social interaction is a contract. You agree to abide by society's laws and society, in return, interacts with you. If you breach that contract, it is entirely at the mercy of society whether or not it wants to offer you a "second chance". I think it's nice to allow some type of rehabilitation, but I don't think it's a moral imperative.

I think that it is similar to sentencing that person to die.

There I will disagree vehemently. A person's life is not simply his interactions with society; a man living alone on an island is just as much of a human being -- and his life worth as much value -- as an executive managing a business in NYC. To remove a person's access to society, therefore, is entirely separate and tangent to taking his life.

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

I'm personally all for bringing back exiling. I know that space in this world's hard to come by but it's ultimately the fairest thing to do. You give him a chance to make a new life, but he can't do so within our borders because he's demonstrated he cannot be trusted.

When you forfeit society's rules, you forfeit society's protections and benefits. That doesn't mean you don't have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Exile is untenable. It's rude, basically. You're saying "Here's a person too disgusting to stay in my country. Somebody else take him." It's like double-dipping in the salsa bowl at the UN.

How can you say that this guy should be condemned to death when you don't even know the whole story?

For all we know, this so-called "victim" could have been leading him on.



Welcome to FARK Nancy!

imgod2u: farm machine: When looking at crime rates were factors such as increase in population, significant civil events and other mitigating factors considered?

Do you know that crime rates is expressed in percentage of population? And did you know that *every* state in the U.S. generally receives the same overall social trends and experiences these "mitigating factors" and yet, States that implement a death penalty see no tangible result in violent crimes that are punishable by death?

Please spare me the "but but you're not sure". You decided to make a "my gut tells me" claim that threatening people with death -- people who are farked up enough in the head to slaughter others -- is somehow a deterrent and I pointed out the BS.

Obviously you're of the opinion that it is wrong to kill a person for any reason as everyone has some intrinsic value. I'm okay with that.

I'm of the opinion that there are some crimes that warrant the immediate end to one's existence in society. The only secluded spot they deserve here is a pine box located 6 ft. below ground level. Rehabilitation doesn't work and we don't need to house these folks and continue to drain society.

PJ_the_Barbarian: Exile is untenable. It's rude, basically. You're saying "Here's a person too disgusting to stay in my country. Somebody else take him." It's like double-dipping in the salsa bowl at the UN.

The notion here is that "if you don't belong to a country, you're not a person." I disagree with this. Nations, nationhood and citizenship are constructs; abstract constructs created by people to regulate amongst themselves. A nation doesn't "own" a person and it certainly doesn't "give" that person to another one.

Exiling is kicking someone out of the club. Whether or not another club takes him is entirely up to the other organization. The only morally consistent goal of a society when dealing with an unwanted person is to not allow him access. Society is only responsible for a person under the social contract.

Whether that's "rude" or not is irrelevant. It's the only thing that doesn't violate any moral imperatives -- I'm not religious, but I'm going to borrow one from that Moses dude: thou shalt not kill -- and still maintains the duty of a society to keep its members safe.

THIS is why we NEED the Mars Program.

The first colony on Mars should be named New Sydney and populated with scum like this.

farm machine: I'm of the opinion that there are some crimes that warrant the immediate end to one's existence in society. The only secluded spot they deserve here is a pine box located 6 ft. below ground level. Rehabilitation doesn't work and we don't need to house these folks and continue to drain society.

You and I can disagree on whether life has intrinsic value or not. I would point out that "existence in society" is not mutually exclusive with "living". You're not either "living in society" or "dead". People lived long before the entire construct of "society" even existed and their lives had just as much value then.

But please do not try to veil your own disregard for human life as some "it's the only way to deter it" BS. I can understand and simply disagree with the notion that human life is expendable. That may not be consistent with my own beliefs but at least it is intellectually honest.

Email his name/address to Dexter....

/who is not me
// absolutely not me
/// definately not me....

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!

THIS

/CAPS LOCK HELL YEAH

Kyotee: Email his name/address to Dexter....

/who is not me
// absolutely not me
/// definately not me....

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.

Dead criminals (determined as such by a fair trial) are not repeat offenders.

So how many people here want to see this guy die in a painful fashion yet praised MJ after his death? I am just curious what the hypocrite ratio on fark is today.

budsterr: So how many people here want to see this guy die in a painful fashion yet praised MJ after his death? I am just curious what the hypocrite ratio on fark is today.

It's not hypocrisy if you don't believe MJ was guilty. Lots of people are unable to believe the worst about their icons. My parish got a new pastor probably ~ 6 or 8 years ago, and the neighborhood ultraconservative busybody just loved him. She thought he was just the best priest we'd ever had - then he got arrested for soliciting a male prostitute. Most of us were just relieved it wasn't an altar boy - he had a creepy vibe about him and nobody was that surprised except the busybody. To this day she's convinced it must have been a misunderstanding.

What should be done with these criminals? (new window) Is justice for the victim important?

frankencj: What should be done with these criminals? (new window) Is justice for the victim important?

This particular definition of justice is a little shaky: they might get some peace of mind from the fact that the offender is gone, and a guilty verdict certainly strengthens their case if they choose to bring some kind of civil suit to seek damages of some kind, but it doesn't actually make them safer or replace what's been taken from them: statistically, one offender is a drop in the bucket and convicting a rapist doesn't "un-rape" the victims. Unless you can quantify how much "justice" they receive from confinement vs death vs rehabilitation, this is just words.

budsterr So how many people here want to see this guy die in a painful fashion yet praised MJ after his death? I am just curious what the hypocrite ratio on fark is today.


Well, not me I guess.

I'd love to see this guy die in a painful fashion, considering he's already probably ruined that little girl's life forever (make no mistake), but I don't recall every praising MJ either before or after his death.

You must be equating allegations against MJ from known extortionists to a man caught red-handed kidnapping and drugging a sobbing little girl who identified him and had his blood all over her.

Nice try.

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.

DROxINxTHExWIND: They're just blowing off steam. Most of them are pussies who wouldn't do shiat but run to the phone and call the police...and there's nothing wrong with doing that. So, I'm not sure why there's always a need to go internet Rambo.

Its just the way they express their disgust.

Not trolling. Dead serious.
I invite any of you cocksuckers on this forum to attempt to harm either of my daughters like this scumbag did. I will farking kill you.

imgod2u:
I agree. I think of life imprisonment like the old-style exiling. It's a perfectly logical response of society: you sign a contract to be a sane person and follow our laws to live amongst us, if you don't, you forfeit your right to *be amongst us*. That's the social contract.


When you forfeit society's rules, you forfeit society's protections and benefits. That doesn't mean you don't have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Where is this contract one signs? What I mean is, one does not choose the society they are born into and furthermore they usually do not have the means as a legal adult (18 in the USA) to leave said society before signing the so-called unwritten social contract.

Additionally, there seems to be no place on this planet where there are dramatically different social contracts available for particular mindset of people to exist is there? This may not seem to be an issue, but let us play with the idea for a moment. If there was a region, small nation perhaps, where one could be as amoral as they so choose according to the social contract of that region, then such individuals would have a place to exist without having to upset or be punished by societies where such behavior/actions are not part of the social contract.

The idea that a social contract must be followed without any formal agreement and/or ability to not sign the contract and be afforded the chance, along with being provided the means, to leave said society to seek out a society with a social contract that is found to more suitable in the eye of each individual is a fundamental flaw in condemning certain individuals in the first place.

There is no choice, but there is punishment for not agreeing with the rules one was bound to without formal agreement; a short of informal imposed slavery via birth... seems ridiculous to me. A solution would be to effectively have different areas/regions that have different social contracts for different individuals needs and the means to allow and facilitate the means to get the individual there. Better to pay for the coke injecting child rapists into that region than paying for there prison stay I think.

danknerd

Blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

/bang bang baby

beerrun

Not trolling. Dead serious.
I invite any of you cocksuckers on this forum to attempt to harm either of my daughters like this scumbag did. I will farking kill you.


Yes, of course we will drug and molest your daughters to see if you are serious about your internet bravado. Address?

danknerd: imgod2u:
I agree. I think of life imprisonment like the old-style exiling. It's a perfectly logical response of society: you sign a contract to be a sane person and follow our laws to live amongst us, if you don't, you forfeit your right to *be amongst us*. That's the social contract.


When you forfeit society's rules, you forfeit society's protections and benefits. That doesn't mean you don't have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Where is this contract one signs? What I mean is, one does not choose the society they are born into and furthermore they usually do not have the means as a legal adult (18 in the USA) to leave said society before signing the so-called unwritten social contract.

Additionally, there seems to be no place on this planet where there are dramatically different social contracts available for particular mindset of people to exist is there? This may not seem to be an issue, but let us play with the idea for a moment. If there was a region, small nation perhaps, where one could be as amoral as they so choose according to the social contract of that region, then such individuals would have a place to exist without having to upset or be punished by societies where such behavior/actions are not part of the social contract.

The idea that a social contract must be followed without any formal agreement and/or ability to not sign the contract and be afforded the chance, along with being provided the means, to leave said society to seek out a society with a social contract that is found to more suitable in the eye of each individual is a fundamental flaw in condemning certain individuals in the first place.

There is no choice, but there is punishment for not agreeing with the rules one was bound to without formal agreement; a short of informal imposed slavery via birth... seems ridiculous to me. A solution would be to effectively have different areas/regions that have different social contracts for different individuals needs and the means to allow and facilitate the means to get the individual there. Better to pay for the coke injecting child rapists into that region than paying for there prison stay I think.

so your reaction to sex crimes is that it's a shame there's no place where they're ok?

beerrun: what_now: There should be more bruises.

THIS.

As a father of a 5 yr old and 4 yr old daughter I would say he would have been lucky that the cops got to him before me if he had harmed one of my girls like that.
I'm not a violent person, but when it comes to protecting or defending my family, someone like that would have been beaten unconscious and then left in his house while I burned it down.
Scumbag.

His fellow inmates will take very good care of him..by very good care of him I mean turn his anus into a theme park.

PeterPipersPickledPecker: THIS is why we NEED the Mars Program.

The first colony on Mars should be named New Sydney and populated with scum like this.

Oh Great! So they can discover the 'Alien Technologies' first and come back and destroy us for sending them off the planet in the first place.

danknerd: imgod2u:
I agree. I think of life imprisonment like the old-style exiling. It's a perfectly logical response of society: you sign a contract to be a sane person and follow our laws to live amongst us, if you don't, you forfeit your right to *be amongst us*. That's the social contract.


When you forfeit society's rules, you forfeit society's protections and benefits. That doesn't mean you don't have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Where is this contract one signs? What I mean is, one does not choose the society they are born into and furthermore they usually do not have the means as a legal adult (18 in the USA) to leave said society before signing the so-called unwritten social contract.

Additionally, there seems to be no place on this planet where there are dramatically different social contracts available for particular mindset of people to exist is there? This may not seem to be an issue, but let us play with the idea for a moment. If there was a region, small nation perhaps, where one could be as amoral as they so choose according to the social contract of that region, then such individuals would have a place to exist without having to upset or be punished by societies where such behavior/actions are not part of the social contract.

The idea that a social contract must be followed without any formal agreement and/or ability to not sign the contract and be afforded the chance, along with being provided the means, to leave said society to seek out a society with a social contract that is found to more suitable in the eye of each individual is a fundamental flaw in condemning certain individuals in the first place.

There is no choice, but there is punishment for not agreeing with the rules one was bound to without formal agreement; a short of informal imposed slavery via birth... seems ridiculous to me. A solution would be to effectively have different areas/regions that have different social contracts for different individuals needs and the means to allow and facilitate the means to get the individual there. Better to pay for the coke injecting child rapists into that region than paying for there prison stay I think.





I bet the reason that you are still alive with that messed up attitude of yours is that very same social contract that you so snidely eschew...

danknerd: PeterPipersPickledPecker: THIS is why we NEED the Mars Program.

The first colony on Mars should be named New Sydney and populated with scum like this.

Oh Great! So they can discover the 'Alien Technologies' first and come back and destroy us for sending them off the planet in the first place.

If they can pull that off, then yes.

beerrun:
DROxINxTHExWIND: They're just blowing off steam. Most of them are pussies who wouldn't do shiat but run to the phone and call the police...and there's nothing wrong with doing that. So, I'm not sure why there's always a need to go internet Rambo.

Its just the way they express their disgust.

Not trolling. Dead serious.
I invite any of you cocksuckers on this forum to attempt to harm either of my daughters like this scumbag did. I will farking kill you.
===============================

Ok. I know you will. Settle down before you spill Vitamin Water onto your keyboard, killer.

PeterPipersPickledPecker: I bet the reason that you are still alive with that messed up attitude of yours is that very same social contract that you so snidely eschew...

If there really were anarchy, every self-proclaimed anarchist I've ever met would be eaten alive in the phase of barbaric tribalism that would arise about a week after the abolition of social order.

danknerd: Where is this contract one signs? What I mean is, one does not choose the society they are born into and furthermore they usually do not have the means as a legal adult (18 in the USA) to leave said society before signing the so-called unwritten social contract.

Actually, you can forfeit your citizenship in most modern democratic countries anytime you want, including the U.S. You stop paying taxes, you are no longer bound by U.S. law, but you can't own property on (or even enter in many cases) U.S. soil and are not afforded protection by the U.S.

So wanna do lines of coke off a tranny prostitute's needle-marked asscrack? Hate that the laws of the U.S. prevents you from doing so? Go to international waters.

Get attacked by a pirate while out there? Tough.

Additionally, there seems to be no place on this planet where there are dramatically different social contracts available for particular mindset of people to exist is there?

There are plenty of uninhabited and unclaimed territories on this planet still.

This may not seem to be an issue, but let us play with the idea for a moment. If there was a region, small nation perhaps, where one could be as amoral as they so choose according to the social contract of that region, then such individuals would have a place to exist without having to upset or be punished by societies where such behavior/actions are not part of the social contract.

A region, yes, a "small nation", no. As soon as there is a nation, there is a social construct and a contract required to live there.

The idea that a social contract must be followed without any formal agreement and/or ability to not sign the contract and be afforded the chance, along with being provided the means, to leave said society to seek out a society with a social contract that is found to more suitable in the eye of each individual is a fundamental flaw in condemning certain individuals in the first place.

The fundamental flaw is that said person has to be provided with an alternative society. The flaw is assuming that everyone *has* to be in a society at all. The flaw is assuming that a society is responsible for where a person goes after they've kicked him out. And the ultimate flaw is thinking that one cannot forfeit one's citizenship at will (at least in most modern democratic countries). This is false.

DROxINxTHExWIND: beerrun:
DROxINxTHExWIND: They're just blowing off steam. Most of them are pussies who wouldn't do shiat but run to the phone and call the police...and there's nothing wrong with doing that. So, I'm not sure why there's always a need to go internet Rambo.

Its just the way they express their disgust.

Not trolling. Dead serious.
I invite any of you cocksuckers on this forum to attempt to harm either of my daughters like this scumbag did. I will farking kill you.
===============================

Ok. I know you will. Settle down before you spill Vitamin Water onto your keyboard, killer.

Drox, he is obviously a 5-hour-energy-shot man...

PeterPipersPickledPecker: DROxINxTHExWIND: beerrun:
DROxINxTHExWIND: They're just blowing off steam. Most of them are pussies who wouldn't do shiat but run to the phone and call the police...and there's nothing wrong with doing that. So, I'm not sure why there's always a need to go internet Rambo.

Its just the way they express their disgust.

Not trolling. Dead serious.
I invite any of you cocksuckers on this forum to attempt to harm either of my daughters like this scumbag did. I will farking kill you.
===============================

Ok. I know you will. Settle down before you spill Vitamin Water onto your keyboard, killer.

Drox, he is obviously a 5-hour-energy-shot man...

sounded more like red bull to me.

imgod2u: But please do not try to veil your own disregard for human life as some "it's the only way to deter it" BS. I can understand and simply disagree with the notion that human life is expendable. That may not be consistent with my own beliefs but at least it is intellectually honest.

Don't recall ever stating that "it's the only way to deter it". What I do advocate is that it needs to be an option that is available for certain crimes. It may not deter crime but it does have a 0% recidivism rate. Of that I'm sure we can all agree. Will be interesting to see what words you decide to credit to me this time.

PJ_the_Barbarian: sounded more like red bull to me.

It's the coke he found at the crime scene.

PJ_the_Barbarian:
so your reaction to sex crimes is that it's a shame there's no place where they're ok?

Not exactly. This so-called social contract that imgod2u is suggesting is not fundamental ideal. Meaning more than just having to live by a contract opposed to sex crimes, there could be other things in said social contract that one may not necessarily agree with but they had no choice in what society they were born in; and are given no means by which to a null contract through disagreement and/or relocating to a different set of social contractual terms. Thereby one is condemned through the actions of their parents fornication into a system of societal slavery. This does not sound very 'civilized' to me, hence it is why I personally believe we are nothing but monkey killing monkey, monkey farking monkey and so on.

PJ_the_Barbarian: PeterPipersPickledPecker: I bet the reason that you are still alive with that messed up attitude of yours is that very same social contract that you so snidely eschew...

If there really were anarchy, every self-proclaimed anarchist I've ever met would be eaten alive in the phase of barbaric tribalism that would arise about a week after the abolition of social order.

That would be "The Land of Take What You Want"

\"Strength through Unity
\\Unity through Faith"

DROxINxTHExWIND: Ok. I know you will. Settle down before you spill Vitamin Water onto your keyboard, killer.

PeterPipersPickledPecker: Drox, he is obviously a 5-hour-energy-shot man...

Spoken like a couple dudes who obviously have no kids (that they know of, anyway.)
Don't even bother posting if you have no clue what it's like to be a father.
And I don't mean sending a monthly check to some chick you knocked up.

PeterPipersPickledPecker: danknerd: imgod2u:


I bet the reason that you are still alive with that messed up attitude of yours is that very same social contract that you so snidely eschew...

You shouldn't assume that I do or do not agree with the social contract I am bound to, that is not a logical discourse for determining as such. Maybe you should ask first?

Anyways... I was just pointing out a flaw, in my opinion, that I see, not a claim that I wish to leave or oppose the social contracts terms where I currently reside.

i thought that's how you made a dead baby float

beerrun: DROxINxTHExWIND: Ok. I know you will. Settle down before you spill Vitamin Water onto your keyboard, killer.

PeterPipersPickledPecker: Drox, he is obviously a 5-hour-energy-shot man...

Spoken like a couple dudes who obviously have no kids (that they know of, anyway.)
Don't even bother posting if you have no clue what it's like to be a father.
And I don't mean sending a monthly check to some chick you knocked up.

THAT hostility bears the rich, smokey flavor of shattered dreams coupled with a piquant afertaste of marital emasculation...

Sorry for commenting on things that set you off, dude.

farm machine: imgod2u: But please do not try to veil your own disregard for human life as some "it's the only way to deter it" BS. I can understand and simply disagree with the notion that human life is expendable. That may not be consistent with my own beliefs but at least it is intellectually honest.

Don't recall ever stating that "it's the only way to deter it". What I do advocate is that it needs to be an option that is available for certain crimes. It may not deter crime but it does have a 0% recidivism rate. Of that I'm sure we can all agree. Will be interesting to see what words you decide to credit to me this time.

My mistake. I went back and the initial poster I was responding to (which you followed up to) was the one who made the claim:

"The ONLY thing that deters crime is punishment."

I actually agree with you on that point. I'm not saying that there aren't situations where death might be necessary. I'm saying that if the alternative of life imprisonment, exile, or any method that can ensure (to a reasonable degree) society's safety without killing is available, that taking the option of the death penalty is morally wrong.

In modern society, especially in the U.S., the situation of "kill or be killed" is almost never true in the legal system.

danknerd: PeterPipersPickledPecker: danknerd: imgod2u:


I bet the reason that you are still alive with that messed up attitude of yours is that very same social contract that you so snidely eschew...

You shouldn't assume that I do or do not agree with the social contract I am bound to, that is not a logical discourse for determining as such. Maybe you should ask first?

Anyways... I was just pointing out a flaw, in my opinion, that I see, not a claim that I wish to leave or oppose the social contracts terms where I currently reside.

Given the verbiage of your statement, inference on my part was not necessary - your intent was elucidated quite clearly.