The death penalty.

[ban-all-sheds]

Although it would still irk me greatly that I would be forced to pay towards the upkeep of the likes of Brady, Nielson, Huntley etc. etc.

You have to pay for all kinds of things that improve society - this is one of them.

 

[Shytalkz]

No point answering your questions, as whatever anybody says you'll find ways to disagree which ignore the simple and unarguable position that killing people as a means of punishment and control is wrong.

In your opinion, as we keep saying. That does not actually make it so, in the views of others. You seem to be more concerned over whatever rights there should be for someone that has killed someone outside the law, than for the fact that there is no effective deterent to stop them doing it in the first place.

You don't think it is because you are violent and uncivilised and want to kill people.

I'm not violent or uncivilised, but happen to think that the death penalty is appropriate for the most heinous crimes. And for being a chav.

As I keep saying, you cannot ever reduce it to a logical argument - some people want to kill, others think that killing is wrong.

Again, you say it as if all proponents of the death penalty want to mete out the sentence themselves, preferably in as painful a manner as possible (having said that, the Chinese knew what they were doing with Ling Chi). That is not so: what they want is a system where the state extinguishes the life of those who by their actions have chosen to operate outside the boundaries of normal society.

 

[sooey]

Although it would still irk me greatly that I would be forced to pay towards the upkeep of the likes of Brady, Nielson, Huntley etc. etc.

You have to pay for all kinds of things that improve society - this is one of them.

Didn't you just say that there was no point answering our questions (I assume that you lump me in with the likes of shytalks megawatt et al.

As I keep saying, you cannot ever reduce it to a logical argument - some people want to kill, others think that killing is wrong.

Others think that allowing people to be killed is wrong.

 

[securespark]

I'm not violent or uncivilised, but happen to think that the death penalty is appropriate for the most heinous crimes. And for being a chav.

You've just made my mind up. Thanks!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In your opinion, as we keep saying. That does not actually make it so, in the views of others.

Ah - firstly that's irrelevant, as in the views of some people it's OK to torture and abuse children for sexual gratification. Would you argue that the views of people who disagreed with them were just "opinions" in an attempt to dismiss them?

Secondly, I know that I am right. It's not just "an opinion" - it is an absolute moral certainty, and with as much certainty I know that people who think otherwise are wrong to think so.

You seem to be more concerned over whatever rights there should be for someone that has killed someone outside the law, than for the fact that there is no effective deterent to stop them doing it in the first place.

Firstly you are ignoring the fact that the law should not operate on the same low standards as people who kill.

Secondly state killing is still outside the law of morality and decency - arguably more so because the state should operate to higher standards than those of criminals.

Thirdly we do not, and not even you would seriously claim that we should, implement systems of punishment purely on the basis of how effective they are and with no regard to proportionality or how corrosive they are to society's values.

I'm not violent or uncivilised but I want to kill people.

Again, you say it as if all proponents of the death penalty want to mete out the sentence themselves, preferably in as painful a manner as possible

Maybe not painfully, but if they aren't prepared to mete it out themselves then they have no right to ask others to do it for them.

That is not so: what they want is a system where the state extinguishes the life of those who by their actions have chosen to operate outside the boundaries of normal society.

The law is clear that DIY is not necessary - if you hire a hit man to murder somebody then you are a murderer.

Similarly if you ask the state to kill on your behalf you are a killer.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Didn't you just say that there was no point answering our questions (I assume that you lump me in with the likes of shytalks megawatt et al.

It wasn't a question, it was a statement, and it does no harm to point out that it's yet another example of your flawed thought processes.

Others think that allowing people to be killed is wrong.

Whereas you don't just want to allow it, you want to actively encourage it.

 

[Shytalkz]

Ah - firstly that's irrelevant, as in the views of some people it's OK to torture and abuse children for sexual gratification. Would you argue that the views of people who disagreed with them were just "opinions" in an attempt to dismiss them?

I think that the example you quote would be met with fairly universal abhorrence. That is not the case with the death penalty. In anycase, I'm not dismissing your opinion, I just recognise that it's completely divergent from mine. I don't think that I'm any more right than you though, or vice versa.

Secondly, I know that I am right. It's not just "an opinion" - it is an absolute moral certainty, and with as much certainty I know that people who think otherwise are wrong to think so.

No you don't. You might think that you do and as far as you are concerned you do. I think you're wrong, no make that misguided, in your beliefs, as do plenty of others. I certainly think that it's less wrong to put someone to death for committing a crime than it is for that person to commit that crime in the first place.

Firstly you are ignoring the fact that the law should not operate on the same low standards as people who kill.

It wouldn't. It (the state) is not going out and stabbing, raping, otherwise killing, in an orgy of drugs, anger, or just sheer sadism.

Secondly state killing is still outside the law of morality and decency - arguably more so because the state should operate to higher standards than those of criminals.

It would. Their death would be humane and painless. And entirely warranted, if the law so allowed it to take place.

Thirdly we do not, and not even you would seriously claim that we should, implement systems of punishment purely on the basis of how effective they are and with no regard to proportionality or how corrosive they are to society's values.

I don't see how having the ultimate deterrent in order to allow those of us in the majority who are law-abiding, honest and decent, would be in any way corrosive. And I firmly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

Maybe not painfully, but if they aren't prepared to mete it out themselves then they have no right to ask others to do it for them.

That would smack of vigilantism. That is not what this is about: it's about expecting the state to ensure that they can go about their lives in safety, as is their every right to expect.

The law is clear that DIY is not necessary - if you hire a hit man to murder somebody then you are a murderer.

Agreed.

Similarly if you ask the state to kill on your behalf you are a killer.

But that's a non-sequitur. I expect the state to keep the roads in a reasonable state of repair, but I'm b*ggered if I'm going out to repair them. That's what I pay my taxes for. Similarly, a portion of my taxes goes to police this country and to make it a safe and enjoyable place in which to live. Hahah. There are all sorts of cloak and dagger things that go on in our name that you never hear about, including murder. By your definition, therefore, aren't we all murderers anyway - including you?

 

[sooey]

Didn't you just say that there was no point answering our questions (I assume that you lump me in with the likes of shytalks megawatt et al.

It wasn't a question, it was a statement, and it does no harm to point out that it's yet another example of your flawed thought processes.

Others think that allowing people to be killed is wrong.

Whereas you don't just want to allow it, you want to actively encourage it.

So, you are prepared to argue against any statements that others make, but not prepared to justify yourself when questioned about your position?
Or was the "No point answering youir questions" remark another example of your unchallengable thought processes?

 

[securespark]

[It would. Their death would be humane and painless.

Not so.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7269.html

 

[godsoftandjoearedull]

So you like the idea of state-sponsored revenge? You just love the killing bit don't you? Weren't in the army were you? That's where all the psychopaths head for. Bees to a honey pot.

You, Joe, my dear friend, are quite clearly 2 pegs short of a secure tent.

 

[securespark]

You, Joe, my dear friend, are quite clearly 2 pegs short of a secure tent.

Hey! Don't drag me into this!

 

[Shytalkz]

That's a new one on me

 

[ModernMaterials]

You're not as clever as you seem to think, since you missed out arson in Her Majesty's shipyards.

How clever do I seem to think I am softus?

Causing a fire or explosion in a naval dockyard, ship, magazine or warehouse ceased to be a capital offence in 1971 in Britain...

but you weren't clever enough to know that...

and you weren't clever enough to describe the offence correctly...

 

[sooey]

He means you're a bit of a flapper.

 

[joe-90]

So you like the idea of state-sponsored revenge? You just love the killing bit don't you? Weren't in the army were you? That's where all the psychopaths head for. Bees to a honey pot.

You, Joe, my dear friend, are quite clearly 2 pegs short of a secure tent.

I love it when regular posters set up sock-puppet accounts. It means that the real poster is too afraid to take me on, ergo, I win.