If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Georgia prepares to execute the state's smartest man   (cnnradio.cnn.com) divider line 88
    More: PSA, U.S. Supreme Court, Peggy Williams, developmental disabilities  
•       •       •

23235 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2013 at 11:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-19 10:55:07 AM
11 votes:
if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.
2013-02-19 11:30:04 AM
6 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


I never got this argument.  Of course you can be pro-life and for the death penalty (I'm neither, but I find this repeated argument completely silly).

You can believe that life is life from conception, and should be protected as any average person.  You can also believe that through evil/illegal action, one can forfeit their life to the state, and be executed.  There's nothing inconsistent about that.  A fetus - if you define it as a human life - can be protected by law because he/she/it is innocent of any crimes.  There's no due process that can take their life.  That protected fetus can be born, grow up, and commit murder.  That willful choice can make their life forfeit to the state.

How is that inconsistent?  It's not an issue of "sacred life".  It's an issue of due process and definition of life.  Again, I'm neither pro-life, nor am I pro-death penalty, but I see this very poor argument over and over, and it's very weak.
2013-02-19 11:12:50 AM
5 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person.  I have no stance on the vengeance portion of it, because I've never been put in the situation of knowing a victim of murder.
2013-02-19 11:28:07 AM
3 votes:

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.  ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.  if it's morally wrong to pick and choose which fetus gets born, then it's equally wrong to pick and choose which murdering bastard gets to die.  lock 'em up?  sure.  but you can't kill 'em and still be pro-life.

pro-life is all inclusive and absolutist.  you CANNOT pick and choose - you are either pro-life or not.  thems the rules.  it's also a very difficult philosophy to follow and I have a lot of respect for people who accept it's tenets and follow them....ALL of them.
2013-02-19 11:22:29 AM
3 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.
2013-02-19 11:19:20 AM
3 votes:
I hate this story
2013-02-19 02:29:16 PM
2 votes:

DingleberryMoose: Carn: They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".

Not so much.  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate, as a fetus is just a very young child who hasn't been born yet.

Carn: "Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.

More like "Life begins at conception and ends when your actions make it reasonable for society to end it according to our set rules."


So these people would see no problem with a society which forces all pregnancies to be carried to term, and then ignores the plight of the children born into extreme poverty, abuse, neglect, and so on?  It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to describe this as a pro-life philosophy.  You are correct, they are anti-abortion.  I think that the reason they use the term pro-life is to make it seem as if that is what they stand for, which is clearly not the case (for many who claim to be).

I feel better.  We have solved nothing :)
2013-02-19 12:53:33 PM
2 votes:

DingleberryMoose: Look, Genesis 2 is also the part where the 6-day creation story is debunked. No fundie reads Genesis 2, except the part where Eve gets everybody in trouble.


Actually, Genesis is where the entire bible is debunked. The salient point of the entire chapter is that a supposedly "all-knowing" deity purposely leaves his beloved children with somebody worse than a pedophile, "the serpent", an agent of the deity's sworn enemy. Then, when his "beloved children" are naturally corrupted, having no knowledge of evil from which to draw any means of resistance from, what does this deity do? Condemn them, and all of their descendants to lives of suffering and strife. Not only is this a major dereliction of duty and avoidance of responsibility on "god's" part, it's rather petty and narcissistic. Most mere mortal parents I know would do better than this. If their god is no better than this, he is certainly imaginary and unworthy of worship.
2013-02-19 12:29:04 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Let me see if I get this.  SOME pro-life people have made rather inept arguments for their stance and so ALL pro-life people must be restricted to exactly, exclusively, and only the part of the argument you've latched onto.  And you've chosen to share this _very_special_ perspective in a thread about somebody who was often beat on the head for being slow.  Very clever of you.
2013-02-19 12:17:52 PM
2 votes:
...

And then you got the knuckledraggers who somehow think that just because there's something growing in mommy's tummy, it's considered a separate and distinguished "life".  Can it breathe on its own?  No?  Read you some Genesis 2 and get back to me on when something *Biblically* is considered "alive."
2013-02-19 12:15:56 PM
2 votes:

rohar: It appears you're confusing the terms pro life with anti abortion. The difference is pretty self defining.


Those 2 terms are conflated an awful lot by plenty of people, *especially* the "pro-life" crowd.  Like Weaver said earlier, these "pro-lifers" are really no more than just anti-abortionists, solely because they want to control what women do with their bodies.  And so we still end up having this moronic debate amongst the pundits and our politicians.

:/
2013-02-19 12:02:56 PM
2 votes:

hinten: I don't get the headline, subby care to explain?


The murderer is a retard, hence the rest of the people in Georgia are dumber retards.
2013-02-19 11:54:06 AM
2 votes:

DingleberryMoose: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

false dichotomy is false


Please explain how being pro life and pro death are not mutually exclusive.
2013-02-19 11:46:32 AM
2 votes:
Conservatives -- especially religious ones -- don't apply logic to any of their beliefs.

Dagnabbit, they're against abortions because life is sacred, but they're for the death penalty because POTATO!!!

Now, you just try to take away their guns.
2013-02-19 11:44:33 AM
2 votes:
I'd give him two choices: Stay here and die, or go to the Wall and join the Night's Watch.
2013-02-19 11:40:13 AM
2 votes:
Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.
2013-02-19 11:38:54 AM
2 votes:

Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


And then they go pray in a church with a huge sculpture of a man being execurted.
2013-02-19 11:37:25 AM
2 votes:

Khellendros: Weaver95: the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God. ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.

No, it's not.  Not even close.  You're assigning that value to the argument, and it's not the premise at all.  Innocence of the life, particularly related to children, is critical to their viewpoint.


I've been under the impression that the pro-lifers aren't so much pro-child as they are anti-woman. The logical inconsistency of their arguments seems to fall apart when they want to prevent abortions but also cut the social safety net.

They want to punish women for having sex (or being raped it would also seem).
2013-02-19 11:36:59 AM
2 votes:

Mr. Titanium: TheShavingofOccam123: Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."

So if a mentally impaired individual is murdering people, do we turn him loose, or give him prison without hope for parole?  Doesn't "without hope of parole" sort of define cruel and unusual punishment?  We sure as anything can't help him develop mentally to the point he doesn't pose a continuing risk to society.  I am not being snarky, but I've never figured a good answer for this.


I don't know the answer myself except to say, while I do personally know people who deserve the death penalty for murder, there will always be enough mentally-ill people and innocent people who will be murdered by the state that we can't really have a death penalty.

I know of two cases of murder by rich people in Arizona where the rich people walked away. And yet an obviously mentally-ill person is going to be murdered by Georgia because Georgia doesn't want to pay for its sins of allowing a child to remain in a family THAT REGULARLY BEAT HIM IN THE HEAD WITH A CAST-IRON OBJECT. Georgia could provide three meals and bed in solitary for this guy--should have done so when he proved he couldn't be around people after the first murder--but instead they'll murder him. I wish the DA, the judge and the jury could be REGULARLY BEATEN IN THE HEAD WITH A CAST-IRON OBJECT and see how their behavior changes over, oh say, 10 or 15 years of that kind of abuse. Georgia's Old Sparky would probably be quite busy after a few years.
2013-02-19 11:35:36 AM
2 votes:

The Onion is prophetic: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person.  I have no stance on the vengeance portion of it, because I've never been put in the situation of knowing a victim of murder.


I'm pro choice, and I'm mostly against the death penalty mostly because we've been wrong SO MANY TIMES. And really that's it. I have no moral qualms about executing a rapist, pedophile, or murderer...when we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. And although our court system is designed to do exactly that, it often fails us. And that works both ways. We've seen the innocent get convicted, and the guilty walk free. Sadly, sometimes this just comes down to a matter of money.
2013-02-19 11:27:40 AM
2 votes:

TheShavingofOccam123: Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."


So if a mentally impaired individual is murdering people, do we turn him loose, or give him prison without hope for parole?  Doesn't "without hope of parole" sort of define cruel and unusual punishment?  We sure as anything can't help him develop mentally to the point he doesn't pose a continuing risk to society.  I am not being snarky, but I've never figured a good answer for this.
2013-02-19 11:20:52 AM
2 votes:
Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."
2013-02-19 07:46:21 PM
1 votes:
cf2.imgobject.com
2013-02-19 05:14:23 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Done in one. Never understood the pro death penalty/pro life group. That stance just never made sense to me at all.

Me? I am pro-death, so death penalties and abortions for all!!
2013-02-19 04:59:16 PM
1 votes:
DingleberryMoose:  I also noticed that most of the abusing caregivers weren't regular attendees at any civic or religious organization.

It could be simple population trends - most families no longer regularly attend churches anyways.  It shouldn't be surprising if 70% of abusers don't regularly go to church if 70% of the population as a whole don't regularly go to church.
2013-02-19 04:53:11 PM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: Y'all are missing the point, which is that subby's headline implies that everyone in Georgia is farking retarded.


Oh, a joke! We didn't miss it. We get jokes.

/I have to stop checking in on this thread. It's farking depressing.
2013-02-19 04:48:10 PM
1 votes:
Every minute in this country
A child is born without a chance.
Now don't that just make you
Want to get up and dance?

/Do the Funky Western Civilization
2013-02-19 03:50:13 PM
1 votes:
Warren Hill grew up in rural Georgia with an IQ of 70.

His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle.


[2:33] "He would shout 'You stupid retard!' Or 'You dumb-ass!' Junior wouldn't cry, though; he would just stand there and endure it. Junior was often beaten like this, by either Momma or Granddaddy, until he would lose consciousness. He would sleep for hours afterwards."


Gosh man! this guy never got a single farkin break in his entire damned life! I wish he was never born. When I read stories like this I have to stop and reflect WTF life is all about. I hope wherever he goes next he has eternal peace!!! he sure as heck deserves it!!
2013-02-19 01:53:53 PM
1 votes:

Lee Jackson Beauregard: FTFA: His sister Peggy...said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow.

Yeah, that'll help.


THIS. The guy's got an IQ of 70 and  farking brain damage, what the hell? That, that is what mental incompetence looks like under ANY law.
m00
2013-02-19 01:33:05 PM
1 votes:
Personally, I think a government that's big and powerful enough to execute prisoners is also big and powerful enough to prevent children from being hit on the head to the point of unconsciousness. Repeated brain damage canwarp your perception of right-and-wrong. Up to the 1950s, if people people knew this was going on in a neighborhood, citizens would intervene. But society has collectively abrogated its responsibility to neighbors coincidentally at the same time government has declared it as an exclusive power.

Instead of focusing on the aftermath (what to do with a killer), maybe we should spend time on the root of the problem. With some notable exceptions, I think most people aren't born murders. Our society creates them in one way or another. It's almost as if this is being deliberately done in order to satisfy an ongoing need so that there can be vengeance. Obvious example is that our penal system creates more "real" criminals than it takes in. Guy comes in for smoking weed or some non-violent crime, leaves a hardened criminal. Why? Because you don't improve people by treating them like animals. Inhumane treatment does not engender feelings of humanity.

So kid suffers multiple brain injuries deliberately inflicted by his parents, and then he goes to prison where he has to contend with violent gangs, rape, extortion and extreme cruelty all while being stripped of dignity and humanity? Of course he murdered his cell mate. So now we get our vengeance by killing him. Bravo.
2013-02-19 01:22:10 PM
1 votes:

DingleberryMoose: Carn: DingleberryMoose: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

false dichotomy is false

Please explain how being pro life and pro death are not mutually exclusive.

First, the terms don't equate, but you know that.  Secondly, the more common pro-life belief is that everyone's life is his/her own and the end of that life can only be sanctioned by that person.  This sanctioning may come in many forms, one of which is committing a crime where the death penalty may be applied.

Being pro-life (generally) indicates that one thinks of a fetus as being a human person from some moment between conception and birth and believes that person should enjoy the same protection of the law that those of us who've already been born enjoy. That person's life should be protected until they do something that warrants lifting that protection, like violating the protection of another person.

In other words, you have the right to life until you forfeit that right through your own heinous actions.

Note that these are not necessarily what I believe, but I've lived around this mindset long enough to tell you it's not unreasoned by the people who hold it, and it's a deeply held set of beliefs.


I understand the rationale, but I disagree with their use of terms.  They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".

"Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.
2013-02-19 01:12:22 PM
1 votes:
Every now and again there's a genuinely interesting thread where individuals get the chance to show their humanity and their interesting points of view -

natas6.0: My question is
why is this murdering bastard still alive?
get to it, people!
chop chop


Then there's that.

On the whole though this is why I like Fark,
2013-02-19 01:00:43 PM
1 votes:
If he were of average intelligence, I'd say he deserved it, but no... I can't support killing people who are mentally handicapped. That anyone even needs to say that is disturbing to me.
2013-02-19 12:59:33 PM
1 votes:
And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'.  period.  its' that simple.

 If all life is sacred, why are there not funeral rights for a miscarriage? The fetus is not given the same send of as a baby would be.
2013-02-19 12:57:18 PM
1 votes:

incendi: The idea that it is any more of a deterrent than life imprisonment is also unproven and highly controversial. If you believe that killing murderers lowers the overall number of people killed, then yes, it's a somewhat consistent position to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but it's based on speculation (maybe this saves lives) rather than things we can actually control (are we going to end this particular life?).


I normally don't out myself on topics like this, but I'm in the odd position of supporting the death penalty philosophically but opposing it in practice, largely due to the notorious unreliability of eyewitness identification of strangers and similar evidentiary problems.  I just don't like anybody getting away with smuggling in important unacknowledged premises in debates like this.  (And I hadn't realized this was in politics; it had hit the front page before I saw it.  Carry on with the cattiness!)
2013-02-19 12:56:30 PM
1 votes:

FarFarAway: urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.

Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.


The argument and test shouldn't be whether he understood his actions to be wrong. The argument and test should be: does he have the capacity to understand history actions? Is he aware of what he did and how that directly resulted in death/injury.

And IIRC, that's also the legal standard (or a prong of the legal standard). There has to be an element of culpability which is related to the capacity to understand the crimes for which you're accused.
2013-02-19 12:56:02 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.

And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'.  period.  its' that simple.

which implies something rather interesting about the pro-lifers who are in favor of the death penalty, don't you think?


No. Wrong. Unless they are also 100% against any form of killing such as self-defense, war, eating meat, leather shoes, etc. Your strawman argument is weak. You and I probably have the same stance on both abortion and the death penalty, but your over simplification and jumping to conclusions of the stance of others does nothing to help your argument.
2013-02-19 12:55:15 PM
1 votes:
A fetus not guilty of any crime? How about that dang ol' Original Sin??? You get that sucker before he's baptized, then BAM! You were OK in taking him out.
2013-02-19 12:41:08 PM
1 votes:

chrylis: You're assuming the unproven (and highly controversial)


chrylis: Since you clearly consider evidence carefully from a neutral perspective before throwing around childishly dismissive insults, make sure you've thoroughly reviewed the work of Isaac Ehrlich.


Ehrlich:There is no unambiguous method for determining whether capital punishment should be utilized as a legal means of punishment without considering at the same time the optimal values of all other choice variables that can affect the level of capital crimes.

The idea that it is any  more of a deterrent than life imprisonment is  also unproven and highly controversial. If you believe that killing murderers lowers the overall number of people killed, then yes, it's a somewhat consistent position to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but it's based on speculation (maybe this saves lives) rather than things we can actually control (are we going to end this particular life?).

Is that a sufficiently neutral perspective to have considered before being childishly dismissive? This is Fark Politics, after all, I assume the bar is set pretty low.
2013-02-19 12:36:00 PM
1 votes:

kombat_unit: hinten: I don't get the headline, subby care to explain?

The murderer is a retard, hence the rest of the people in Georgia are dumber retards.


Got it.

I'm glad that the Georgians have such faith in their government to always get the right guy executed. Talk about big government.
OTOH, it is limited to blacks and retards so nobody is really in danger.
2013-02-19 12:32:19 PM
1 votes:

coeyagi: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

Nope, according to them, it's all about life.  They don't qualify it.  I mean, except when someone dares to question about them about life when it's outside the womb.


Oddly, I do see the word "innocent" thrown around quite frequently in abortion connotations. This man has no innocence, he may be developmentally stunted and the product of abuse, but he is still capable of making decisions, and while locked in a tiny space, under heavy guard with one other man, he decided to kill that man.

Yes, his parents were awful, but he is utterly incapable of being trusted in the presence of any other humans, ever.

Our choices are locking him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life, or killing him.

Now, if there was restraint. If he had been in jail for assault and assaulted his cell mate? Different story. But he's in for murdering an ex-girlfriend, and then murdering a cell mate.

Funny, thinking about it this way, King, while in jail, decided another man needed to be put to death, and he did so.

Functionally, he already decided that he himself was pro-death penalty, until it would apply to him.
2013-02-19 12:30:45 PM
1 votes:

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world.

So we should execute everyone with profound developmental disabilities and those who become seriously disabled?

If they enjoy murdering, then yes.

And if they are just "useless to the world" as you stated?

So the absolute number of lives on the planet is our overall goal? More = better? We shouldn't strive to minimize suffering?

/half trolling.


I don't think you are very useful. To the death panels with you!
2013-02-19 12:15:47 PM
1 votes:

chrylis: You're assuming the unproven (and highly controversial) premise that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent.  It's perfectly consistent to be pro-life in the broad sense and support a death penalty that prevents more homicides than individuals executed.


While we're baselessly speculating, abortion could also prevent more homicides than fetuses aborted. In any case, Weaver appears more interested in reclaiming the word "pro-life" for what it once meant before it was co-opted by the religious right to mean (pretty much exclusively) "anti-abortion" than arguing about how whether or not some middle position between "All life is sacred" and "Kill babies, make baby omelets" is internally consistent and valid.
2013-02-19 12:14:11 PM
1 votes:

The Onion is prophetic: ...I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person....


So... an innocent baby/fetus/etc... ISN'T an innocent life?? WTF?

 - Look i don't care one way or the other as people have different circumstances and will ultimately be held responsible for their actions (be it Karma, or whatever), but DAMN. At least OWN your decision. This wishy-washy shiat doesn't make any sense no matter how you parse it.
2013-02-19 12:12:05 PM
1 votes:

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


When 1 out of 20 of the people executed are innocent, yes, innocent life is still part of the issue.
2013-02-19 12:09:47 PM
1 votes:
I'm ok with all of you Farkers having abortions.  I'm also ok with the state killing this reta....*ahem* mentally challenged individual.  I won't do either.  I have morals, but I don't advocate legislating morality.
2013-02-19 12:06:28 PM
1 votes:

Carn: DingleberryMoose: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

false dichotomy is false

Please explain how being pro life and pro death are not mutually exclusive.


First, the terms don't equate, but you know that.  Secondly, the more common pro-life belief is that everyone's life is his/her own and the end of that life can only be sanctioned by that person.  This sanctioning may come in many forms, one of which is committing a crime where the death penalty may be applied.

Being pro-life (generally) indicates that one thinks of a fetus as being a human person from some moment between conception and birth and believes that person should enjoy the same protection of the law that those of us who've already been born enjoy. That person's life should be protected until they do something that warrants lifting that protection, like violating the protection of another person.

In other words, you have the right to life until you forfeit that right through your own heinous actions.

Note that these are not necessarily what I believe, but I've lived around this mindset long enough to tell you it's not unreasoned by the people who hold it, and it's a deeply held set of beliefs.
2013-02-19 12:04:56 PM
1 votes:
thread is completely DERPED. I guess it's appropriate.
2013-02-19 12:03:20 PM
1 votes:

Bell-fan: Regarding the man he killed in prison.

Our death penalty candidate killed his SLEEPING cellmate... with a nail studded piece of wood... and they think it's because he simply felt that he didn't have anything to lose because he was already in prison for murder.

So... I'm sorry, he clearly understood it was wrong... he simply didn't care.

The more I read on this the more I'm of the opinion that the anti death penalty folk need to choose their battles better. This is a hard one to justify granting him mercy.


The thing about mercy is that its usually not an easy thing to grant.
2013-02-19 12:00:09 PM
1 votes:

The Onion is prophetic: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person.  I have no stance on the vengeance portion of it, because I've never been put in the situation of knowing a victim of murder.


One of the kids I grew up with - one of my closest friends - was murdered when I was 15.  It was rather shocking, because Eugene doesn't (didn't?) really have gang violence to the best of my knowledge.  The man that did it, Conan Wayne Hale, is on death row.

I still do not support the death penalty.  I will never support the death penalty.  Will I be happy when he dies?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  That's irrelevant; that's vengeance, not justice.  Justice would be having him pay for his crimes in a way that betters society, not damages it.

Legalized murder is not acceptable.  Period.

Weaver95: i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.  ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.  if it's morally wrong to pick and choose which fetus gets born, then it's equally wrong to pick and choose which murdering bastard gets to die.  lock 'em up?  sure.  but you can't kill 'em and still be pro-life.

pro-life is all inclusive and absolutist.  you CANNOT pick and choose - you are either pro-life or not.  thems the rules.  it's also a very difficult philosophy to follow and I have a lot of respect for people who accept it's tenets and follow them....ALL of them.


DING DING DING, we have a winner.

 

Khellendros: I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


You're thinking of the PROTESTANT view on life.  The CATHOLIC stance on life is just as anti-death-penalty, or at least the one outlined by JPII was.  That's one reason why I support this new-found thought process of changing the language from pro-life and pro-choice to something else.  A consistent pro-life ethic encourages the sanctity of life at ALL stages.
2013-02-19 11:58:24 AM
1 votes:
Regarding the man he killed in prison.

Our death penalty candidate killed his SLEEPING cellmate... with a nail studded piece of wood... and they think it's because he simply felt that he didn't have anything to lose because he was already in prison for murder.

So... I'm sorry, he clearly understood it was wrong... he simply didn't care.

The more I read on this the more I'm of the opinion that the anti death penalty folk need to choose their battles better. This is a hard one to justify granting him mercy.
2013-02-19 11:54:19 AM
1 votes:
I should also be clear - 'valid' christian religions in this country are the catholic church, Lutherans, eastern orthodox church, Protestants and  Presbyterians.  that's it.  the rest are cults and heretics.  no exceptions.  if you call yourself a 'christian' and aren't a member of a main stream church then you are a heretic and fool.  plus you're probably being scammed out of your life savings.  in my view, 'evangelical' is code word for 'please bring back the holy inquisition and burn me at the stake'.  every time I see an 'evangelical' preaching, I imagine them screaming as they burn in holy fire.

*sigh*

I think I missed my true calling in life.  I wonder if the pagans could use an inquisitor?
2013-02-19 11:53:34 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


People who quote the bible as truth are simply saying "I've stopped thinking".  You can't apply logic to these people's rationale.
2013-02-19 11:53:30 AM
1 votes:
It's too bad we can't go back in time and execute the mother and grand-father.
GBB
2013-02-19 11:52:44 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: no, i'm telling you how the pro-lifers themselves define their own ideology.  all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  they believe its wrong to take a life under any circumstances, be it abortion or via the death penalty.  this is their belief, and it's all inclusive.  it doesn't allow for the death penalty.


Well, there's the problem.  You are confusing the Pro-Life movements ideology with the vague term "pro life".  The term "pro life" is used in the abortion debate to differentiate between those that belive abortions are an abomination and those that are "pro choice" in that they believe the mother should be the only one who decides.  The Pro-Life movement believes all life is sacred like you said, they just have the unfortunate position of being equated with a generic term.

It would like saying that a Head-On accident involves someone that can't follow simple directions:
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

but it's not this:
blog.lehighvalleylive.com
2013-02-19 11:51:58 AM
1 votes:

sethen320: Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.


Which is why they're in prison.
2013-02-19 11:49:30 AM
1 votes:
The guy kills somebody and gets sent to prison. While in prison he kills some else. fark him.
2013-02-19 11:47:44 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Titanium: TheShavingofOccam123: Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."

So if a mentally impaired individual is murdering people, do we turn him loose, or give him prison without hope for parole?  Doesn't "without hope of parole" sort of define cruel and unusual punishment?  We sure as anything can't help him develop mentally to the point he doesn't pose a continuing risk to society.  I am not being snarky, but I've never figured a good answer for this.


You're not being snarky. I agree, this is a hard thing to figure out. However, what I found interesting is that a lot of the articles about this case don't tell you what he's being put to death FOR?
 CNN... they actually took the time to tell you that he's on death row for first shooting his girlfriend to death, and then killing his cellmate.
Truth is, the guy killed another prisoner... with a nail studded piece of wood... and here's the key part... because he thought he didn't have anything to lose.

Think about that. All this "The poor guy only has a 70 iq" stuff. But he was able to conceptualize that what he was doing was wrong, but didn't care.

I'm sorry, but this guy is a danger to everyone, in or out of prison. What should be do? lock him in solitary for the rest of his life? Never let him interact with another human because he can't be trusted not to kill someone out of pure apathy of spirit?

I'm of the opinion there's really no choice here.
2013-02-19 11:46:52 AM
1 votes:

Khellendros: Weaver95: And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'. period. its' that simple.

There's your disconnect.  Catholics and Jews make up a fairly small percentage of the Judeo-Christian makeup in this country.  The bulk of those arguing this point are neither Catholic nor Jew.  Talk to one of the tens of thousands of Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc., etc, that make up the bulk of U.S. Christians, and the primary movers behind the pro-life political movement.  Read their literature and talk to their leaders, particularly those that make up the Evangelical movement.  They will have very different views and reasoning.


yes, but they're f*cking heretics and should all be burned at the stake.
2013-02-19 11:46:19 AM
1 votes:

HAMMERTOE: If mental retardation is no impediment to your ability to murder, it should be no impediment to your paying the ultimate price for it. After all, an abortion isn't the taking of a life, it is merely the excise of a mass of tissue. Well, the death penalty is simply abortion on a civic scale. I do concede the point that it should only be used in cases where the identity and guilt of the killer is beyond doubt. But, once you cross that threshold, the murderer should be looked at as no more than a larger mass of cells, having sacrificed their humanity for whatever reason was applicable to them.


And when we get it wrong? Then what?
2013-02-19 11:46:09 AM
1 votes:

CygnusDarius: I'd give him two choices: Stay here and die, or go to the Wall and join the Night's Watch.


I think I'd rather choose death.  living out my life on a giant refrigerator, dodging undead and never getting laid?  kill me now, it'd be clean death.
2013-02-19 11:45:02 AM
1 votes:
If mental retardation is no impediment to your ability to murder, it should be no impediment to your paying the ultimate price for it. After all, an abortion isn't the taking of a life, it is merely the excise of a mass of tissue. Well, the death penalty is simply abortion on a civic scale. I do concede the point that it should only be used in cases where the identity and guilt of the killer is beyond doubt. But, once you cross that threshold, the murderer should be looked at as no more than a larger mass of cells, having sacrificed their humanity for whatever reason was applicable to them.
2013-02-19 11:43:15 AM
1 votes:
So the pro-lifers are clearly OK with babies spawned by incest and rape.
2013-02-19 11:42:24 AM
1 votes:
For pro-lifers - as far as I know, there are no regular funeral rights for a miscarriage. If the religion doesn't treat a miscarriage as if it was a human being, how is it a human being by religious standards?
2013-02-19 11:42:21 AM
1 votes:

xanadian: Weaver95: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.

The premise as I had it explained to me is that babies/fetuses (feti?)/zygoats are innocent, while murderers are not.  So it's more "pro-innocent-life."

That's not to say the death penalty still isn't barbaric, though...


It appears you're confusing the terms pro life with anti abortion.  The difference is pretty self defining.
2013-02-19 11:41:25 AM
1 votes:

Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


Too bad that's not in the Bible.
2013-02-19 11:40:46 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


I'm pro-life across the board. The death penalty has caused the death of too many innocent people. Our justice system is too flawed for it to be an option.
2013-02-19 11:40:09 AM
1 votes:
The pro-lifers have made it quite clear that ALL LIFE IS SACRED, and that death is God's decision, not man's.

That's what they believe. That is the definition of "pro-life." It's not "pro-life, except when..."

Of course this isn't the first time the religious have gone with the "pick and choose" method of believing what they want to believe (see: the bible).
2013-02-19 11:39:43 AM
1 votes:

Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'.  period.  its' that simple.

which implies something rather interesting about the pro-lifers who are in favor of the death penalty, don't you think?
2013-02-19 11:39:38 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: no, i'm telling you how the pro-lifers themselves define their own ideology.  all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  they believe its wrong to take a life under any circumstances, be it abortion or via the death penalty.  this is their belief, and it's all inclusive.  it doesn't allow for the death penalty.


Of course, that's just the pro-lifers. There aren't too many of those about. There are a lot of confused anti-abortionists, though.
2013-02-19 11:37:55 AM
1 votes:
xanadian:
The premise as I had it explained to me is that babies/fetuses (feti?)/zygoats are innocent, while murderers are not.  So it's more "pro-innocent-life."

That's not to say the death penalty still isn't barbaric, though...


I've spoken to priests and rabbis about it and each and every single one of them summed up their pro-life stance as 'all life is sacred'.  without fail, without hesitation they have ALL said that to be pro-life means to believe that ALL life is sacred.  no exceptions at all.  all life is sacred.  all of it.  even scum sucking murderers.  especially scum sucking murderers.

now, the weak willed bottom feeders just in it to punish women for having sex - THOSE guys are pro-death penalty.
2013-02-19 11:35:02 AM
1 votes:

Khellendros: Weaver95: the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God. ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.

No, it's not.  Not even close.  You're assigning that value to the argument, and it's not the premise at all.  Innocence of the life, particularly related to children, is critical to their viewpoint.


no, i'm telling you how the pro-lifers themselves define their own ideology.  all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  they believe its wrong to take a life under any circumstances, be it abortion or via the death penalty.  this is their belief, and it's all inclusive.  it doesn't allow for the death penalty.
2013-02-19 11:34:49 AM
1 votes:
I'm from Georgia and I am smart enough to not murder anyone.

Subby is a douche.
2013-02-19 11:34:07 AM
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: Hmmm.

Last week farkers were up in arms because IQ tests weren't a real evaluation of intelligence.

This week, some of you are upset because IQ is now an accurate measure of intelligence.


I guess I missed that. But I would think than IQ of 70 along with testimony from special ed teachers would be enough to know that he's not firing on all cylinders.
2013-02-19 11:33:11 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.


The premise as I had it explained to me is that babies/fetuses (feti?)/zygoats are innocent, while murderers are not.  So it's more "pro-innocent-life."

That's not to say the death penalty still isn't barbaric, though...
2013-02-19 11:33:00 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


So, you're saying it's contradictory to want to spare the innocent and condemn the guilty?
2013-02-19 11:32:54 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God. ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.


No, it's not.  Not even close.  You're assigning that value to the argument, and it's not the premise at all.  Innocence of the life, particularly related to children, is critical to their viewpoint.
2013-02-19 11:32:15 AM
1 votes:

Khellendros: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I never got this argument.  Of course you can be pro-life and for the death penalty (I'm neither, but I find this repeated argument completely silly).

You can believe that life is life from conception, and should be protected as any average person.  You can also believe that through evil/illegal action, one can forfeit their life to the state, and be executed.  There's nothing inconsistent about that.  A fetus - if you define it as a human life - can be protected by law because he/she/it is innocent of any crimes.  There's no due process that can take their life.  That protected fetus can be born, grow up, and commit murder.  That willful choice can make their life forfeit to the state.

How is that inconsistent?  It's not an issue of "sacred life".  It's an issue of due process and definition of life.  Again, I'm neither pro-life, nor am I pro-death penalty, but I see this very poor argument over and over, and it's very weak.


it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  even the lives of murderers on death row.  they're life is sacred too.  don't believe me?  go read their literature.  its very well defined.
2013-02-19 11:31:05 AM
1 votes:
Hmmm.

Last week farkers were up in arms because IQ tests weren't a real evaluation of intelligence.

This week, some of you are upset because IQ is now an accurate measure of intelligence.
2013-02-19 11:30:32 AM
1 votes:

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


If you go with that logic then how do you know that the person aborted wasn't a mass-murderer in the making.  Would they argue Hitler's mom getting an abortion was bad, hell I doubt they would they say Obama being aborted would have been bad and would have cheered loudly.  They pick and choose what is "innocent" and "sacred."  You can tell nothing is sacred or innocent in their eyes as they'll charge 9 year old children as adults for certain crimes.  Innocence only goes as far as it serves their cause of imposing their morality on everyone then it must be brushed aside and turned into evil.
2013-02-19 11:27:56 AM
1 votes:
Farking barbaric.
2013-02-19 11:27:15 AM
1 votes:
Poor bastard.

You know, if his family hadn't TBI'd or CTE'd him (whatever we're calling it now) in the first place, maybe he would have been "slow, reliable Warren" instead of "slow, prone-to-fits-of-murder Warren."

I'm okay with taking him out, but only if his mom and grandpa go too.
2013-02-19 11:26:21 AM
1 votes:
FTFA: His sister Peggy...said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow.

Yeah, that'll help.
2013-02-19 11:25:20 AM
1 votes:

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


Nope, according to them, it's all about life.  They don't qualify it.  I mean, except when someone dares to question about them about life when it's outside the womb.
2013-02-19 11:21:48 AM
1 votes:

jfivealive: I hate this story


Me too.
2013-02-19 11:18:46 AM
1 votes:
Here's to Georgia and yet another set of impossibly strict standards!

Yay!
2013-02-19 11:16:54 AM
1 votes:
As Christopher Titus suggested, we should stop calling it the death penalty.

Instead, think of it as a really really late term abortion.
2013-02-19 10:59:21 AM
1 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report