Atheistforums.com

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/24/execution-joseph-rudolph-wood-arizona-inmate-takes-2-hours/

The Arizona execution in which the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts decision to hold off until the state would provide what drugs and who the executioners were TOOK TWO FUCKIN' HOURS to carry out.

Is that humane? Most inhumane US Supreme Court (minus the sane ones helpless to do anything but watch the Conservative Justices fuck up everything because they're by the Catholic Church not the US Constitution).

Death Penalty needs to go!

Quote"...gasping and snorting for more than an hour."

"One thing is certain, however," Brewer's statement continued, "Wood died in a lawful manner and by eyewitness and medical accounts he did not suffer.

:wtff:

-Nam

Yep. For some reason, nitrogen asphyxiation, though cheap, painless, and effective isn't being used. Not that I support the death penalty, but if we're going to have it then nitrogen is the way to go. Hell, if the prisoner gives consent you can even use the organs afterwards because they're not poisoned!

The death penalty is about vengeance and vengeance ONLY. It has nothing to do with punishment or detouring people from committing their special crimes and damned sure nothing to do with justice.

Recently a guy said why not use the firing squad if you're going to execute them? A judge I believe it was.

To be honest, I could go with that. It lasts 10 seconds, and 7 guys shooting you with even low powered weapons at a rang of less than 10 yards will most certainly lead to instantaneous death

What is the function of the death penalty? To spit someone out of existence like a watermelon seed, or to punish said person? Punitive or cleansing? Or a little bit of both?

Either way, I think it is very fucked up.

"Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord, "and by extension, also to my flock."

I saw the twat on TV claim they guy couldn't suffer enough to satisfy her.. Those weren't her exact words, but heavily implied. I seriously doubt the bitch has ever felt empathy for any suffering of anyone except herself. Yet, no amount of vengeance will ever bring her family back and now she has the blood of the condemned on her hands as well as having to deal with grief of missing family.
People seem to have a fucked up idea of what prison is about as if they themselves would all be the alpha dog in prison and nobody ever suffers enough there.

I really get tired of this life at times listening to these arrogant fucks.

As I said once before, the death penalty is about bloodlust. From a religious standpoint, the opposite of anything like forgiveness. This in a sectarian state where the majority thinks of themselves as religious. Really stupid from every angle. I think someone doing life in prison facing every day without hope is a worse fate than death and the cessation of life. Were I in that situation, I would commit suicide.

Quote from: stromboli on July 24, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
As I said once before, the death penalty is about bloodlust. From a religious standpoint, the opposite of anything like forgiveness. This in a sectarian state where the majority thinks of themselves as religious. Really stupid from every angle. I think someone doing life in prison facing every day without hope is a worse fate than death and the cessation of life. Were I in that situation, I would commit suicide.

Which is why the death penalty ought to be completely voluntary..  Give the option to most people doing hard time and I bet a large percentage would take it.
What I don't understand is the foolishness of lethal injection when heroin is dirt cheap, painless and abundant.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 24, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Which is why the death penalty ought to be completely voluntary..  Give the option to most people doing hard time and I bet a large percentage would take it.
What I don't understand is the foolishness of lethal injection when heroin is dirt cheap, painless and abundant.

And Nitrogen gas. Or even Carbon Monoxide.

Not sure about nitrogen, but carbon monoxide isn't painless. Besides, the public would never go for it because it smacks of gassing people..

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 24, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
Not sure about nitrogen, but carbon monoxide isn't painless. Besides, the public would never go for it because it smacks of gassing people..

I had 2 friends that lost their lives in high school from Carbon Monoxide poisoning, and they both just died. No indication of pain or struggle. Interesting.

Quote from: stromboli on July 24, 2014, 11:44:25 AM
I had 2 friends that lost their lives in high school from Carbon Monoxide poisoning, and they both just died. No indication of pain or struggle. Interesting.

I've been exposed twice..once by accident and once trying to off myself. You get real groggy and sleepy, but it's still painful. You just can't move easily. Your limbs get REALLY heavy.. But it feels like grit in your veins..

Quote from: stromboli on July 24, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
As I said once before, the death penalty is about bloodlust. From a religious standpoint, the opposite of anything like forgiveness. This in a sectarian state where the majority thinks of themselves as religious. Really stupid from every angle. I think someone doing life in prison facing every day without hope is a worse fate than death and the cessation of life. Were I in that situation, I would commit suicide.

It's also cheaper.

-Nam

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 24, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Which is why the death penalty ought to be completely voluntary..  Give the option to most people doing hard time and I bet a large percentage would take it.
What I don't understand is the foolishness of lethal injection when heroin is dirt cheap, painless and abundant.

Wouldn't that be assisted suicide?

-Nam

Quote from: stromboli on July 24, 2014, 11:44:25 AM
I had 2 friends that lost their lives in high school from Carbon Monoxide poisoning, and they both just died. No indication of pain or struggle. Interesting.

Two of my high school classmates were parking. It was winter, they left the car running and the car exhaust was broken. It appears they fell asleep and never woke up.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 24, 2014, 02:55:35 PM
Two of my high school classmates were parking. It was winter, they left the car running and the car exhaust was broken. It appears they fell asleep and never woke up.

Yeah. My friends were listening to the radio in an unheated garage and had the car running to stay warm. Same thing, they just went to sleep.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 24, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
What I don't understand is the foolishness of lethal injection when heroin is dirt cheap, painless and abundant.

For things that society (and the government) views as ideologically important, it does seem like they often complicate the solution.  Perhaps, as some sort of compromise in the political leadership, the preferred solution is one that few people really understand.  Maybe this makes the solution seem like something that has been carefully thought out.  The result is that in the end, it is not understood, and oftentimes, not the most effective way of going forward.  You can probably think of lots of examples of this kind of thing in government.

How about abolishing the death penalty altogether? No, that would be logical...

Quote from: Atheon on July 26, 2014, 12:44:57 PM
How about abolishing the death penalty altogether? No, that would be logical...

Oh, stop. Quit dragging logic into emotional discussions. :naughty:

Quote from: Atheon on July 26, 2014, 12:44:57 PM
How about abolishing the death penalty altogether? No, that would be logical...

Do you think there's nobody who deserves to fry?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 26, 2014, 02:12:52 PM
Do you think there's nobody who deserves to fry?

It's not a matter of deserving but if one is going to be barbaric at least be up front about it; or, if you're going to "fry" someone make sure they're actually the one who did the crime.

-Nam

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 26, 2014, 02:12:52 PM
Do you think there's nobody who deserves to fry?

I think it has to do with preventing harm. If someone has no chance of reforming, I wouldn't say he "deserves to fry" but it's better him rather than letting havoc to continually run amok. If someone is convicted of killing people, gets arrested and then when he is released, goes back to killing people, the best answer right now is death. It's not a good answer, but it's the best answer we have right now. It's not like life in prison does anything, but waste tax money. If they are getting life in prison, they might as well just go... and that is really upsetting, because we really need to figure out a good, fool proof way of reformation so we no longer need the death penalty.

Quote from: Nam on July 26, 2014, 02:46:39 PM
It's not a matter of deserving but if one is going to be barbaric at least be up front about it; or, if you're going to "fry" someone make sure they're actually the one who did the crime.

-Nam

I volunteered to throw the switch back in  1995, on behalf of a friend. The guy 'fessed up after he was found guilty. I lost no sleep over it.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 26, 2014, 02:55:20 PM
I think it has to do with preventing harm. If someone has no chance of reforming, I wouldn't say he "deserves to fry" but it's better him rather than letting havoc to continually run amok. If someone is convicted of killing people, gets arrested and then when he is released, goes back to killing people, the best answer right now is death. It's not a good answer, but it's the best answer we have right now. It's not like life in prison does anything, but waste tax money. If they are getting life in prison, they might as well just go... and that is really upsetting, because we really need to figure out a good, fool proof way of reformation so we no longer need the death penalty.

More money is spent keeping them on death row than just keeping them their for life.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 26, 2014, 02:57:10 PM
More money is spent keeping them on death row than just keeping them their for life.

-Nam

It's less money to keep them there for life? I didn't know that. I thought it was the other way around.

Sent from your mom

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 26, 2014, 02:59:21 PM
It's less money to keep them there for life? I didn't know that. I thought it was the other way around.

Sent from your mom

You add in the plethora of appeals which tax payers pay for. See, 75+ years ago it was much simpler, you were found guilty, no appeal, and you were hanged (or shot, gassed, etc.,) but prisoners have rights, especially those on death row, and they can exhaust as much as they want. In California a judge recently stated the death penalty was unconstitutional there because either the appeals process took so long 20+ years would pass or the courts were so backed up and the scheduling of an execution was taking too long (15-20 years).

All that costs tax payers a shitload of money.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 26, 2014, 03:06:01 PM
You add in the plethora of appeals which tax payers pay for. See, 75+ years ago itvwas much simpler, you were found guilty, no appeal, and you were hanged (or shot, gassed, etc.,) but prisoners have rights, especially those on death row, and they can exhaust as much as they want. In California a judge recently stated the death penalty was unconstitutional there because either the appeals process took so long 20+ years would pass or the courts were so backed up and the scheduling of an execution was taking too long (15-20 years).

All that costs tax payers a shitload of money.

-Nam

Yeah I didn't realize that.

I still say that we need a better, actually foolproof reformation method. I hate the death penalty even though sometimes it's a necessity.

Sent from your mom

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 26, 2014, 02:55:43 PM
I volunteered to throw the switch back in  1995, on behalf of a friend. The guy 'fessed up after he was found guilty. I lost no sleep over it.

I think this says less about how you feel toward the death penalty than it does about your willingness to suspend rational thought for the sake of revenge.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 26, 2014, 03:33:51 PM
I think this says less about how you feel toward the death penalty than it does about your willingness to suspend rational thought for the sake of revenge.

That was one of the feelings I had at the time. Another was the feeling you get when you take your friend to pick up his daughters from the country morgue.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 26, 2014, 03:53:30 PM
That was one of the feelings I had at the time. Another was the feeling you get when you take your friend to pick up his daughters from the country morgue.

Revenge is a powerful emotion.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 26, 2014, 08:30:53 PM
Revenge is a powerful emotion.

-Nam

No doubt. I found the smell interesting.

if it's for revenge then it's ok to kill? Just wondering.

And I do find it conflicting that the same people who are against the death penalty are for abortion. Just wanted to point that out.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 26, 2014, 03:53:30 PM
That was one of the feelings I had at the time. Another was the feeling you get when you take your friend to pick up his daughters from the country morgue.

Which, again, says less about how you feel toward the death penalty than it does about your willingness to suspend rational thought for the sake of revenge.

Sure there are those who deserve to die, but it's not about what people deserve; its about justice in a civilized society. Civilized societies don't kill. Plus it's more cost effective to imprison criminals for life than to kill them... this is a fact that's been well known for decades.

And abortion has no connection. The death penalty ends human lives while abortion does not.

I beg to differ. Abortion absolutely ends human life. You can flower it up and use definitions that skirt reality but abortion is killing a baby end of story. It's just that people don't want to hear that. they want their abortions. Sorry but I call a duck a duck.

As for the death penalty it is barbaric and uncivilized. I've never been supportive of it. But I also don't support the inhumane treatment of prisoners. I think some kind of reformation needs to be seriously looked at. I know it's been tried and failed in the past but in these modern times you can't tell me that all we can do is nothing but lock people up for life.

Even if there was an effective reformation people would be in an outrage if a murder was reformed  and set free instead of punished. The predominantly christian country Christianity that preaches forgiveness, does the opposite of forgiveness. They demand blood and a pound of flesh.

I also think there could be programs offered that could be preventative measures. well there is a program that's not well known, If you go to the hospital and say you are homicidal or will hurt some one they can put you in the lunny bin. As to whether that works permanently is yet to be seen.

QuoteI beg to differ. Abortion absolutely ends human life. You can flower it up and use definitions that skirt reality but abortion is killing a baby end of story. It's just that people don't want to hear that. they want their abortions. Sorry but I call a duck a duck.

It ends a potential human life, not a babies'. A human fetus is no more a human than an omelet is a chicken. A baby is, by definition, an animal that has already been born. That is not flowering it up, that is the simple scientific truth and definition. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the scientists who decided at what point a zygote becomes an embryo becomes a fetus becomes a baby becomes a....

Abortions take place when an embryo resembles a human about as much as it resembles a chicken, a lizard or a elephant. You can argue that you are terminating a future human, but ultimately at the point of abortion you are "killing" an entity that cannot sustain itself, cannot think or have any sort of sentience, most likely has the most basic of feeling...

While I have some ethical issues with ending that, at the end of the day I think the termination of life at that point is preferable to it being born into a world where it is at best not wanted, at worse going to be abused, tortured, and who know's what else.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 27, 2014, 02:28:28 AM
Which, again, says less about how you feel toward the death penalty than it does about your willingness to suspend rational thought for the sake of revenge.

My decision was very rational. I doubt you'll agree, but then I don't worry about that kind of thing. The fucker is dead, and that was the most rational solution to the problem.

Rather than hijacking this thread I'll start an abortion thread.

I have a responds.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 27, 2014, 07:40:08 AM
My decision was very rational. I doubt you'll agree, but then I don't worry about that kind of thing. The fucker is dead, and that was the most rational solution to the problem.

No, GS, that's not rational, it's revenge. You and your friend wasted every other taxpayer's money to fulfill your own need for revenge. The point of justice is to make sure the guy can never hurt another person, one way or another. Killing him is going far beyond what is actually required. I know that sentiment will upset you. I don't really care.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 27, 2014, 11:46:47 AM
No, GS, that's not rational, it's revenge. You and your friend wasted every other taxpayer's money to fulfill your own need for revenge. The point of justice is to make sure the guy can never hurt another person, one way or another. Killing him is going far beyond what is actually required. I know that sentiment will upset you. I don't really care.

Actually, I'm the one that doesn't care. The fucker's dead. EOF

Quote from: doorknob on July 27, 2014, 06:56:37 AM
I beg to differ. Abortion absolutely ends human life. You can flower it up and use definitions that skirt reality but abortion is killing a baby end of story. It's just that people don't want to hear that. they want their abortions. Sorry but I call a duck a duck.

you are stating your opinion as if it's a fact.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 24, 2014, 11:51:29 AM
I've been exposed twice..once by accident and once trying to off myself. You get real groggy and sleepy, but it's still painful. You just can't move easily. Your limbs get REALLY heavy.. But it feels like grit in your veins..

SEE! You just had to ruin my day, I thought it was painless. I over dosed on a bottle of aspirin, amitriptyline, and six beers while watching fish in an aquarium---I went to sleep, and woke up three days later and had to go to work. I still have nightmares about going to work.  Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on July 30, 2014, 07:52:34 PM
SEE! You just had to ruin my day, I thought it was painless. I over dosed on a bottle of aspirin, amitriptyline, and six beers while watching fish in an aquarium---I went to sleep, and woke up three days later and had to go to work. I still have nightmares about going to work.  Solitary

Those poor fish

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 26, 2014, 03:06:01 PM
...
but prisoners have rights, especially those on death row, and they can exhaust as much as they want
...

-Nam

Do You think it's ok if someone who killed another person or worse and thus rejected all the basic rules of living in a society, demands to exercise his "rights" as a member of said society? And, to top it off, we happily grant this, enjoying ourselves as "the enlightened", caring and "humane" society.
It's like in the movies when the bad guy, after a bloodbath he made, laughs and yells to the cops "Go on! Arrest me now. Throw me in jail! I need a vacation after all this work." And they do just that!!!!

For me it's simple on the most general level: If someone throws away the rules of a society he gets punished accordingly. When You take another human's life You get killed, end of story. It's not about revenge. It's a simple matter of protecting those who obey the rules, a simple matter of survival of the society. It's about NOT tolerating intolerance in the most extreme form.

And I don't buy the crap about offing some killer is more expensive than keeping him alive for 40 years or so.

Quote from: pioteir on July 31, 2014, 05:09:44 AM
Do You think it's ok if someone who killed another person or worse and thus rejected all the basic rules of living in a society, demands to exercise his "rights" as a member of said society? And, to top it off, we happily grant this, enjoying ourselves as "the enlightened", caring and "humane" society.
It's like in the movies when the bad guy, after a bloodbath he made, laughs and yells to the cops "Go on! Arrest me now. Throw me in jail! I need a vacation after all this work." And they do just that!!!!

For me it's simple on the most general level: If someone throws away the rules of a society he gets punished accordingly. When You take another human's life You get killed, end of story. It's not about revenge. It's a simple matter of protecting those who obey the rules, a simple matter of survival of the society. It's about NOT tolerating intolerance in the most extreme form.

And I don't buy the crap about offing some killer is more expensive than keeping him alive for 40 years or so.

It's actually not crap, it's a fact. But that is irrelevant in my mind.

Does a murderer deserve to die? Maybe. Do I, as a pious, Good Upstanding Person have the right to take his life? I don't think I do on a fundamental level. It's an obvious difference in fundamental beliefs, I think.

Quote from: pioteir on July 31, 2014, 05:09:44 AM
Do You think it's ok if someone who killed another person or worse and thus rejected all the basic rules of living in a society, demands to exercise his "rights" as a member of said society? And, to top it off, we happily grant this, enjoying ourselves as "the enlightened", caring and "humane" society.
It's like in the movies when the bad guy, after a bloodbath he made, laughs and yells to the cops "Go on! Arrest me now. Throw me in jail! I need a vacation after all this work." And they do just that!!!!

People who disregard societies laws should be punished for it. A person who kills another, and then the society decides that they're going to kill them disregards their own laws in the process. They stipulate "killing is wrong" then turn around and contradict that by killing the killer. That's not an exercise of justice that's an exercise of revenge.

Whether the person is deserving or not is irrelevant.

QuoteFor me it's simple on the most general level: If someone throws away the rules of a society he gets punished accordingly. When You take another human's life You get killed, end of story. It's not about revenge. It's a simple matter of protecting those who obey the rules, a simple matter of survival of the society. It's about NOT tolerating intolerance in the most extreme form.

How is locking them up for life not a manner of protecting society from such people?

QuoteAnd I don't buy the crap about offing some killer is more expensive than keeping him alive for 40 years or so.

Appeals process can take decades thus it costs more to keep them on death row than just allowing them to just stay in prison for life.

What you think is irrelevant, in such regard.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 04:49:09 PM
People who disregard societies laws should be punished for it. A person who kills another, and then the society decides that they're going to kill them disregards their own laws in the process. They stipulate "killing is wrong" then turn around and contradict that by killing the killer. That's not an exercise of justice that's an exercise of revenge.

Whether the person is deserving or not is irrelevant.

How is locking them up for life not a manner of protecting society from such people?

Appeals process can take decades thus it costs more to keep them on death row than just allowing them to just stay in prison for life.

What you think is irrelevant, in such regard.

-Nam

And what about locking someone up for life? Isn't it also "wrong"? If a guy in Austria locks his daughter in the basement for 24 years it's considered wrong, but locking someone who killed another person is "justice"? The killer also has rights You know!
Well what about the VICTIM'S right to live!?

How about a situation where the killer is caught red handed and is about to attack the policemen trying to arrest him? Should they shoot him? Should they try to apprehend him with their bare hands?

The truth is we as a society grant certain things in certain situations and we don't consider them as "wrong" under the circumstances (killing the attacker in self defence, cops killing the "bad" guys). So why is it so hard to kill a mass murderer caught red handed? As a civilized society we bring him to court, he gets a fair trial, gets sentenced and off with him. I'm not talking about cases where there are doubts or whatever. You hace a killer seen by couple people, the camera got his face as he was killing, the prints are on the knife or whatever. He's guilty as fuck.
The second thing are the appeals. If the evidence is solid beyond any doubt and the killer doesn't give a fuck about the rules what's with the "he has rights" crap? He had rights BEFORE he killed the other guy. Again I'm not talking about some guy who stole some shit to eat and we need to cut his arm off.
So the appeals don't take decades and don't cost much.
My thought on the price of killing the killer could be a little more precise. I was referring strictly to the act of carrying out the sentence, not the decades of appeals and other "killer exercising his rights" type of stuff.

As for "How is locking them up for life not a manner of protecting society from such people?" I gotta ask: What happens when a killer kills another inmate? What then? Did we protect the other guy (who had just 2 days left of his sentence)? Why do I (a law abiding citizen) have to pay for a killer's housing, meals and activities (ping pong, trips to zoo, tv, game consoles or whatever)? Frankly I don't wanna. And if You consider the cost of a bullet... well You know what I want to say.

Quote from: pioteir on July 31, 2014, 05:09:44 AM
Do You think it's ok if someone who killed another person or worse and thus rejected all the basic rules of living in a society, demands to exercise his "rights" as a member of said society? And, to top it off, we happily grant this, enjoying ourselves as "the enlightened", caring and "humane" society.
It's like in the movies when the bad guy, after a bloodbath he made, laughs and yells to the cops "Go on! Arrest me now. Throw me in jail! I need a vacation after all this work." And they do just that!!!!

For me it's simple on the most general level: If someone throws away the rules of a society he gets punished accordingly. When You take another human's life You get killed, end of story. It's not about revenge. It's a simple matter of protecting those who obey the rules, a simple matter of survival of the society. It's about NOT tolerating intolerance in the most extreme form.

And I don't buy the crap about offing some killer is more expensive than keeping him alive for 40 years or so. How many people have been found innocent though because of bigotry and prejudice? 

"a simple matter of survival of the society." You got that part right.  I agree that offing a killer is more expensive is BS. But how many were later found innocent, and found guilty because of bigotry and prejudice? Would an humane society do that? Solitary

Quote from: pioteir on August 02, 2014, 03:30:49 PM
And what about locking someone up for life? Isn't it also "wrong"? If a guy in Austria locks his daughter in the basement for 24 years it's considered wrong, but locking someone who killed another person is "justice"?

People consent to following laws where they live by following the laws. It's not: "Well, I agree to follow these laws but I won't those over there." If a person unlawfully keeps a person locked up for decades yet in that same period of time chooses to follow other laws to do so then they can't just disregard the laws they dislike. 

QuoteThe killer also has rights You know!

They do have rights. They have the right afforded to them by the laws of where they live/d.

QuoteWell what about the VICTIM'S right to live!?

How does that negate the killer's rights?

QuoteHow about a situation where the killer is caught red handed and is about to attack the policemen trying to arrest him? Should they shoot him? Should they try to apprehend him with their bare hands?

Broad, unimaginative, and without specifics.

QuoteThe truth is we as a society grant certain things in certain situations and we don't consider them as "wrong" under the circumstances (killing the attacker in self defence, cops killing the "bad" guys).

When someone dies by the death penalty it's still called a homicide. It's "legal" murder.

QuoteSo why is it so hard to kill a mass murderer caught red handed? As a civilized society we bring him to court, he gets a fair trial, gets sentenced and off with him. I'm not talking about cases where there are doubts or whatever. You hace a killer seen by couple people, the camera got his face as he was killing, the prints are on the knife or whatever. He's guilty as fuck.

I was waiting for you to bring up "civilised". I knew you would.

Would a civilized society really stoop to the same level as a murderer by then becoming murderers themselves? Is that truly justice?

The problem you have is those found "red-handed" is not the norm. If it were trials would be fewer but they're not. So, a civilised society pieces together evidence and places it in front of a judge/jury and then tries to convince them this is the person who committed the crime. And, much of the time they are the criminal however some of the time, they are not. So, you have innocent people on death row, and many times when it's found out they are innocent based on the laws of that particular area, many innocent people found they are innocent, are still executed.

Does a civilised society execute innocent people? Does a civilised society use the "eye for an eye" as their means of carrying out justice?

To you: yes.

QuoteThe second thing are the appeals. If the evidence is solid beyond any doubt and the killer doesn't give a fuck about the rules what's with the "he has rights" crap? He had rights BEFORE he killed the other guy. Again I'm not talking about some guy who stole some shit to eat and we need to cut his arm off.

Sure you are.

QuoteSo the appeals don't take decades and don't cost much.

Nonsense.

QuoteMy thought on the price of killing the killer could be a little more precise. I was referring strictly to the act of carrying out the sentence, not the decades of appeals and other "killer exercising his rights" type of stuff.

As for "How is locking them up for life not a manner of protecting society from such people?" I gotta ask: What happens when a killer kills another inmate? What then? Did we protect the other guy (who had just 2 days left of his sentence)? Why do I (a law abiding citizen) have to pay for a killer's housing, meals and activities (ping pong, trips to zoo, tv, game consoles or whatever)? Frankly I don't wanna. And if You consider the cost of a bullet... well You know what I want to say.

And this is how you are uncivilised.

-Nam

QuoteFrankly I don't wanna.

Frankly, I don't want to pay for firemen to come and stop your house from burning down. I don't want to pay for your medical care when you get sick. I don't want to pay for highways in Idaho that I will never use.

Government spending ain't about what you "wanna or don't wanna" do, it's about maintaining a civilized society and I for one am very glad the government isn't based on the concept of, "I don't wanna!".

Quote...well You know what I want to say.

That you are an uncivilized barbarian living in the dark ages when it comes to this? Alright, fair enough. Thankfully society has progressed a bit further than you, even with all it's hold outs.

Civilization? Great idea!  When do you think we will get one?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2014, 09:42:44 PM
Civilization? Great idea!  When do you think we will get one?

132 billion years from now.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 02, 2014, 09:45:15 PM
132 billion years from now.

-Nam

Optimist.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2014, 09:51:11 PM
Optimist.

FINE! 132 trillion years from now. Better?

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 02, 2014, 09:55:33 PM
FINE! 132 trillion years from now. Better?

-Nam

Okay, that's inside the window I've been picturing.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2014, 10:03:26 PM
Okay, that's inside the window I've been picturing.

I hate you.

-Nam

meh. I like em dead. Never have to worry about looking under the bed or out the window or behind the tree. Dead is that society is positively protected, life in prison is society is probably protected. i prefer positively.

Quote from: aitm on August 02, 2014, 11:21:59 PM
meh. I like em dead. Never have to worry about looking under the bed or out the window or behind the tree. Dead is that society is positively protected, life in prison is society is probably protected. i prefer positively.

Yes, because only killers are under your bed, outside your window, and behind trees.

-Nam

Quote from: doorknob on July 27, 2014, 12:03:25 AM
And I do find it conflicting that the same people who are against the death penalty are for abortion. Just wanted to point that out.

This is an easy one to tackle without derailing the thread at all. First of all it should be clarified that not ALL of the same people who are against the death penalty are for abortion. One does not automatically equal the other. But the point is still valid because there are indeed plenty of individuals who are against the death penalty but are also for abortion. Are they just being hypocritical assholes?  You can't answer that without understanding why they're  for and against each thing. But it is easy to imagine that one can have separate opinions on each topic which makes them for one (abortion) while being against the other (death penalty) without making themselves into irrational hypocritical assholes. And it should probably also be noted that in fact some of them very well may simply be hypocritical assholes.

That being said, the thing you need to understand in order for this to make sense is that lots of people don't consider an unborn fetus to be a baby. A future baby? A potential baby? Sure. But not a baby. Especially in the early stages of pregnancy when most abortions are performed. You can disagree with that if you like but you cannot get around the fact that there are people who hold that opinion.

Once we've established that, the rest is pretty simple. History has proven that criminals who are left alive can sometimes find their way out of prison, either by escape or by being released for various reasons, and will then commit crimes again. I'm not saying this in any way justifies the death penalty. But I think it stands to reason that some individuals probably form their pro death penalty opinion based at least loosely on the previous statement. IOW, convicted murders stand at least some chance of being able to harm innocent people again and putting them to death effectively stops that. Obviously there lots valid counter arguments to that opinion but the fact remains that there are people who hold that opinion.

Likewise history has also proven that when abortion becomes illegal, abortions do not stop happening and those women who choose to get an abortion then run a significantly higher risk of being injured or killed while having said abortion performed underground by unskilled individuals. Again lots of valid arguments against abortion also exist but the fact remains that this is a valid reason for people to feel the way they do on the topic.

So when you put two and two together you can see that it isn't much of a stretch for someone to feel that being pro death protects innocent living people (not fetus' but actual people) from harm and that being pro abortion also protects actual grown people (not fetus' but actual people) from harm. Easy peasy one two three.

Also please note that nowhere in this post have I given any indication of my own opinion on each subject. Please keep that in mind before you call me out for being wrong because something I've said above goes against the way you happen to feel.

Quote from: Nam on August 02, 2014, 11:36:45 PM
Yes, because only killers are under your bed, outside your window, and behind trees.

-Nam

I am pretty sure normal people aren't under my bed, outside my window or behind the trees.....

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
I am pretty sure normal people aren't under my bed, outside my window or behind the trees.....

Are killers the only bogey men out there?

What about thieves, rapists, stalkers, pedophiles, drug dealers, etc.,

Do they not exist?

:wink:

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 01:40:25 PM
Are killers the only bogey men out there?

What about thieves, rapists, stalkers, pedophiles, drug dealers, etc.,

Do they not exist?


:wink:

-Nam

an eye fer an eye....aye..

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - Ghandi.

-Nam

Ghandi was wrong.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 01:52:08 PM
Ghandi was wrong.

Yeah, it's mostly just the Middle East.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 01:52:08 PM
Ghandi was wrong.

You're wrong.

Good can not combatant bad, it can only contain it. It can not destroy it.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 02:34:25 PM
You're wrong.

Good can not combatant bad, it can only contain it. It cannot destroy it.

-Nam

Define good and bad?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 03, 2014, 02:39:19 PM
Define good and bad?

Good: in accordance with the general, and overall morality of any given society based upon the ethical standpoint of right versus wrong.

Bad: Not good by any degree that conflicts with the general definition and/or morality of a society based on the ethical stand point of right versus wrong.

-Nam

Quote from: Solitary on August 02, 2014, 03:50:53 PM
  "a simple matter of survival of the society." You got that part right.  I agree that offing a killer is more expensive is BS. But how many were later found innocent, and found guilty because of bigotry and prejudice? Would an humane society do that? Solitary

I agree enntirely about the innocent people getting convicted. That's why I mentioned some situations where it's certain, 10000% sure the guy did it (if it's even possible).


Nam You didn't get anything I meant/wrote in my post. Not sure if I should explain it to You again like talking to a 4 year old.


Shiranu when did I ever talk about firemen or highways in Idaho? Also I do have internet, electricity and bunch of other stuff so I'm not sure if the dark ages suit me that much.

I'm sorry (not really) that an idea to kill the killers seems uncomfortable, uncivilized even, to some of You. After being called an uncivilised barbarian the next thing I'm waiting for is a mob, angry if possible, armed with pitchforks and torches chanting prayers outside my window... well... maybe prayers are a bit too much for atheists...

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 01:44:07 PM
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - Ghandi.

-Nam

Don't Believe Everything That You Read on The Internet. - Abraham Lincoln

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 02:56:21 PM
Good: in accordance with the general, and overall morality of any given society based upon the ethical standpoint of right versus wrong.

Bad: Not good by any degree that conflicts with the general definition and/or morality of a society based on the ethical stand point of right versus wrong.

-Nam

So, definition specific to one society. What if they're not the same in another society?

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 02:34:25 PM
You're wrong.

Good can not combatant bad, it can only contain it. It can not destroy it.

-Nam

I disagree, good can destroy bad. Killing a human who has no sympathy to other humans is not the same as murdering someone who does have sympathy towards others. Killing to protect the innocent is not only morally acceptable but demandable.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 03:33:58 PM
I disagree, good can destroy bad. Killing a human who has no sympathy to other humans is not the same as murdering someone who does have sympathy towards others. Killing to protect the innocent is not only morally acceptable but demandable.

Spot on! ... unless You assume the killer has rights. Good to know there are some level-headed people out there.

The way I see it political correctness and tolerance toward the intolerant are 2 major steps toward anihilation of the so-called civilized society. Grow some balls and fight back goddamit!!!

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 03:33:58 PM
I disagree, good can destroy bad. Killing a human who has no sympathy to other humans is not the same as murdering someone who does have sympathy towards others. Killing to protect the innocent is not only morally acceptable but demandable.

If society, as a whole, determines that killing is wrong then it must apply to all killing not just what pertains to one's point-of-view.

Therefore, if the society, as a whole, kills the killer then they are the killer as well, and therefore no longer "good" but "bad" as defined by their general ethical standpoint.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 04:17:09 PM
If society, as a whole, determines that killing is wrong then it must apply to all killing not just what pertains to one's point-of-view.

Therefore, if the society, as a whole, kills the killer then they are the killer as well, and therefore no longer "good" but "bad" as defined by their general ethical standpoint.

-Nam

In my opinion, that is nonsensical. Killing a killer in no way, in absolutely no way, equals in any way, or is in any way comparable to a person who goes out and kills someone for the sake of killing someone. Removing a killer from society guarantees its safety from that one individual. I believe it to be a moral obligation to society and a personal affront to anyone whom said killer should kill in the future should the opportunity be available.

I could forgive a demented killer for being demented, but I could not forgive a rational person who let a demented person loose who killed again when the blue print had already been laid. That to me, is an affront to civilized society.

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 04:17:09 PM
If society, as a whole, determines that killing is wrong then it must apply to all killing not just what pertains to one's point-of-view.

Therefore, if the society, as a whole, kills the killer then they are the killer as well, and therefore no longer "good" but "bad" as defined by their general ethical standpoint.

-Nam

Tell me how do You expect that to work with people who are not part of Your "society" or better yet for a time they are but then they decide to kill some of it's members.
Do You consider such people a part of Your society and naturally expect them to follow "Your society's" rules?
How does that work with someone half around the globe who has a different set of rules?
Do You impose "Your" rules over their's? Do You talk it out? What if they want You dead instead of talking? Do You defend Yourself?

Quote from: pioteir on August 03, 2014, 04:27:48 PM
Tell me how do You expect that to work with people who are not part of Your "society" or better yet for a time they are but then they decide to kill some of it's members.
Do You consider such people a part of Your society and naturally expect them to follow "Your society's" rules?
How does that work with someone half around the globe who has a different set of rules?
Do You impose "Your" rules over their's? Do You talk it out? What if they want You dead instead of talking? Do You defend Yourself?

I live in the US, therefore my comments are about the US since this top is about the death penalty in the US.

If you wish to make this a broader topic create it elsewhere and I'll discuss it there.

-Nam

Here's the thing...

The death penalty kills the wrong person... alot.
The death penalty kills people that are questionably guilty, and may have done it more out of situation than being "evil"... alot.

Now, when you start telling me that it is "good" to institute a system that kills the wrong people or people who aren't "evil"... I have a very hard time buying into this argument that morality is at all applicable to the death penalty, and if it is then the people who would support it are just as evil.

What is the difference between the "evil" man who knowingly kills an innocent and a "good" man who knowingly supports a system that kills innocents? The only difference I see is the "evil" man is willing to get his hands bloody himself and doesn't try to justify his actions as being just.

If we lived in a perfect world where the wrong guy would never be killed, or even killed at small ratio, then you have room to talk about the death penalty being the pragmatic (though I simply can never agree with it being the moral, and it is certainly the more expensive) option. But we will never live in that world, and therefor to support the death penalty is to intentionally support the murder of innocent people. There is no good or just in that.

Quote from: Shiranu on August 03, 2014, 04:51:36 PM
Here's the thing...

The death penalty kills the wrong person... alot.
The death penalty kills people that are questionably guilty, and may have done it more out of situation than being "evil"... alot.

Now, when you start telling me that it is "good" to institute a system that kills the wrong people or people who aren't "evil"... I have a very hard time buying into this argument that morality is at all applicable to the death penalty, and if it is then the people who would support it are just as evil.

What is the difference between the "evil" man who knowingly kills an innocent and a "good" man who knowingly supports a system that kills innocents? The only difference I see is the "evil" man is willing to get his hands bloody himself and doesn't try to justify his actions as being just.

If we lived in a perfect world where the wrong guy would never be killed, or even killed at small ratio, then you have room to talk about the death penalty being the pragmatic (though I simply can never agree with it being the moral, and it is certainly the more expensive) option. But we will never live in that world, and therefor to support the death penalty is to intentionally support the murder of innocent people. There is no good or just in that.

I understand your argument but that is not the argument at hand, (at least that is not the argument that I am stating). Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
I understand your argument but that is not the argument at hand, (at least that is not the argument that I am stating). Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.

Okay, on that one I don't really have a yes or no. If there was no better alternative at hand to restrain him and keep him from hurting someone else (say in a shoot-out or something) then I think it's 100% morally justified. Otherwise I am very iffy on it.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
I understand your argument but that is not the argument at hand, (at least that is not the argument that I am stating). Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.

I disagree; not only based on overall consensus (laws on killing in general; even those who have no intent to kill and kill go to prison for it; some for life) but also for the fact most executions in the US have nothing to do with justice.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 04:17:09 PM
If society, as a whole, determines that killing is wrong then it must apply to all killing not just what pertains to one's point-of-view.

Therefore, if the society, as a whole, kills the killer then they are the killer as well, and therefore no longer "good" but "bad" as defined by their general ethical standpoint.

-Nam

But we have a whole lot of different "societies" on the mudball right now.

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 05:13:07 PM
I disagree; not only based on overall consensus (laws on killing in general; even those who have no intent to kill and kill go to prison for it; some for life) but also for the fact most executions in the US have nothing to do with justice.

-Nam

You of course have points. But my argument is rather simple. Do we have the moral right to kill a killer? And let me set aside that I do not mean an "accidental" killer, but that human that kills intentionally simply to kill. I say yes. What most executions "have to do" is irrelevant to my point.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 05:31:25 PM
You of course have points. But my argument is rather simple. Do we have the moral right to kill a killer? And let me set aside that I do not mean an "accidental" killer, but that human that kills intentionally simply to kill. I say yes. What most executions "have to do" is irrelevant to my point.

Morals are based on what is right and what is wrong ethically. Is it ethical to kill someone because they killed someone?

Both deaths are attributed to the want of one (or many) to terminate another's life based on illogical reasoning.

"He slighted me therefore he should die."

"He slighted society therefore he should die."

How is the same thing ethical and unethical simultaneously?

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 06:26:16 PM
Morals are based on what is right and what is wrong ethically.

And ethics are situational. Is it ethical to cut a man's arm off? Depends. Is it ethical to kill a man? Depends.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 03, 2014, 06:32:38 PM
And ethics are situational. Is it ethical to cut a man's arm off? Depends. Is it ethical to kill a man? Depends.

Only if you take absolution out of the equation. Then, like...say...the Bible, one can determine from whatever interpretation they wish that best suits their viewpoint.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 06:40:08 PM
Only if you take absolution out of the equation. Then, like...say...the Bible, one can determine from whatever interpretation they wish that best suits their viewpoint.

-Nam

And people do that all the time, but they claim "society" demanded they do what they did.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 03, 2014, 06:43:16 PM
And people do that all the time, but they claim "society" demanded they do what they did.

Irrelevant.

-Mam

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.

Its a dangerous game to allow morality to enter into a question like this. Because there are nothing but very slippery slopes in every direction. If we argue that its morally wrong to kill the killer, then we also have to argue that all war is morally wrong. Therefore if we're going to dedicate vast amounts of people and resources to a strong military and national defense system, we are in essence dedicating vast amounts of people and resources to something which is at its very core morally wrong. And not only that, a great many of us on a personal level are taking every opportunity to thank those involved for their service, give them our airplane seats, letting them preboard etc.

I can't recall a time when I was on a commercial flight and the flight attendant announced that we had a porn star on board and encouraged all of us to give him or her a round of applause for their service. I do kind of like the idea of living in a world where everyone on a flight gives a round of applause to thank porn stars for their service but alas that is not the world we live in.

On the other hand if we argue that its morally right to kill the killer then we have to by default say its morally right to kill period. We as atheists complain often about the proclivity for theists to pick and choose which bible parts apply and which do not. But if we argue that its morally right to kill the killer, we are in effect doing the exact same thing. There is no winning either way if you make this a moral question IMO.

You have to leave morality at the door on this one and make up your mind based on other criteria. That's the only way I see it working no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 06:50:54 PM
Irrelevant.

-Mam

Yes, M'am.

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 06:26:16 PM
Morals are based on what is right and what is wrong ethically. Is it ethical to kill someone because they killed someone?

Both deaths are attributed to the want of one (or many) to terminate another's life based on illogical reasoning.

"He slighted me therefore he should die."

"He slighted society therefore he should die."

How is the same thing ethical and unethical simultaneously?

-Nam

Firstly, I would argue that society does not want to kill anyone, thankfully. Society did not start out saying, " if you kill someone, we will collectively kill you". I believe society started out saying, "you killed someone, why? For what reason? You killed for the simple act of killing, we do not want your type around and cannot trust you not to kill again so we as a collective, must rid you." And society has every right and in my opinion the implied demand to act to protect the society.
It is not wrong to kill the killer, but it is irresponsible to society and to each individual to appease a temporary moral to allow the very possible chance of that person killing again. And perhaps that, over time, is indeed the lesson learned. If you can guarantee safety but refuse, then why would an individual wish to be part of a society not willing to work to protect the collective?

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 08:15:05 PM
Firstly, I would argue that society does not want to kill anyone, thankfully. Society did not start out saying, " if you kill someone, we will collectively kill you". I believe society started out saying, "you killed someone, why? For what reason? You killed for the simple act of killing, we do not want your type around and cannot trust you not to kill again so we as a collective, must rid you." And society has every right and in my opinion the implied demand to act to protect the society.
It is not wrong to kill the killer, but it is irresponsible to society and to each individual to appease a temporary moral to allow the very possible chance of that person killing again. And perhaps that, over time, is indeed the lesson learned. If you can guarantee safety but refuse, then why would an individual wish to be part of a society not willing to work to protect the collective?

So "getting rid of" now equates to "killing you" only? I can take exactly what you said and throw it right back at you and that proves my point, I believe.

I understand your point but let's not say, "killing is wrong*" <--- and have the asterisk. Because then, anything can be attributed to the asterisk.

-Nam

Killing is not wrong at many times. What does one do when his/her country is invaded by another? Should we disband our armed forces even if such a danger exists?

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 10:46:29 PM
So "getting rid of" now equates to "killing you" only? I can take exactly what you said and throw it right back at you and that proves my point, I believe.

I understand your point but let's not say, "killing is wrong*" <--- and have the asterisk. Because then, anything can be attributed to the asterisk.

-Nam

I don't actually know what that means. Non-the-less, I, again, believe that killing a killer is morally right , cannot be equated with killing in general, and is necessary for the better protection of the society.

Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 04, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
Killing is not wrong at many times. What does one do when his/her country is invaded by another? Should we disband our armed forces even if such a danger exists?

Is assisted euthanasia "murder"? If someone has their arm trapped under a car that's on  fire is it okay to cut their arm off?

It's just lazy to say "murder is ALWAYS bad", or that "evil" is commonly defined across cultures.

I believe right and wrong is subjective and often times situational.

I also feel the justice system is not real justice in the first place. When ever you have a jury deciding who is innocent or guilty you are just having people judging other people. That's not justice. In the day and age of science and provable evidence the evidence should be what convicts a person not a jury. If there is no proof you can not convict the person no matter guilty any one thinks the person is. Yet that is not how the system works. Even if the evidence is shaky and even sometimes there is no evidence at all people are still convicted. That to me seems wrong.

Is the death penalty wrong? I can't say but it is often inhumane. And I see no reason to go about things in a way that is inhumane.

Killing is wrong, until it isn't. If I need to defend myself or someone I care about, I will use whatever force necessary including lethal force. That being said if the death penalty was only used on guilty people 100% of the time I would probably support it more.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on August 04, 2014, 08:36:31 PM
Killing is wrong, until it isn't. If I need to defend myself or someone I care about, I will use whatever force necessary including lethal force.

You bring up an interesting point here.

You remind me of the time when I was ambushed and assaulted by a stranger who grabbed me while I was walking in a dark and secluded place. I was 15, and I remember very clearly knowing that given the chance, I would have killed my attacker without hesitation, because he was threatening my life. I am very glad I did not because it would have fucked me up in the head, but if I am ever in that situation again, I am pretty sure my feelings would be the same. Nobody has the right to kill anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I had to. Morally wrong? Yeah. I think it's morally wrong, but I'd still do it.

This is such a complicated question.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 04, 2014, 08:53:12 PM
You bring up an interesting point here.

You remind me of the time when I was ambushed and assaulted by a stranger who grabbed me while I was walking in a dark and secluded place. I was 15, and I remember very clearly knowing that given the chance, I would have killed my attacker without hesitation, because he was threatening my life. I am very glad I did not because it would have fucked me up in the head, but if I am ever in that situation again, I am pretty sure my feelings would be the same. Nobody has the right to kill anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I had to. Morally wrong? Yeah. I think it's morally wrong, but I'd still do it.

This is such a complicated question.

That is the basis for my claim that I could convert ANY pacifist to violence given a free hand. I had to get my troops into a killer mindset or we would have all still been there. It's not always easy but I never failed.

Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 04, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
Killing is not wrong at many times. What does one do when his/her country is invaded by another? Should we disband our armed forces even if such a danger exists?

Does an armed force have to kill to secure their country?

-Nam

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on August 04, 2014, 08:36:31 PM
Killing is wrong, until it isn't. If I need to defend myself or someone I care about, I will use whatever force necessary including lethal force. That being said if the death penalty was only used on guilty people 100% of the time I would probably support it more.

That says it all, "Killing is wrong until I say it isn't."

-Nam

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 04, 2014, 09:18:04 PM
That is the basis for my claim that I could convert ANY pacifist to violence given a free hand. I had to get my troops into a killer mindset or we would have all still been there. It's not always easy but I never failed.

Convert? If I had killed my attacker, I would have spent the rest of my life all fucked up in the head. I don't think that act would "convert" me from a pacifist to a warrior. The instinct to protect myself with deadly force would not change anything about me fundamentally, and I would have suffered a great deal for it.

Quote from: Nam on August 05, 2014, 02:49:41 AM
Does an armed force have to kill to secure their country?

-Nam

I strongly feel the answer to this is no.

Quote from: Nam on August 05, 2014, 02:55:26 AM
That says it all, "Killing is wrong until I say it isn't."

-Nam

Where do you get off by saying that killing is ALWAYS wrong? Like there are some universal objective truths or whatever.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 05, 2014, 07:59:47 AM
I strongly feel the answer to this is no.

The invading troops wouldn't care less about how You feel. The question is What would You do if some foreign army marched straight into Your town and started killing people? Would You give up and die in peace? Would You run? Would You fight them to protect Yourself and loved ones?

QuoteWould You run?

That would be the wisest option, yes. If a foreign army was to the point they were killing people in our cities then we are fucked anyways. Better to survive on the run than kill 1 or 2 of them before they wipe out you and your family.

Quote from: Shiranu on August 05, 2014, 04:05:59 PM
That would be the wisest option, yes. If a foreign army was to the point they were killing people in our cities then we are fucked anyways. Better to survive on the run than kill 1 or 2 of them before they wipe out you and your family.

Better to live on your knees than die on your feet? Gotcha. Stay out of the way if something like that happens.

straying a little off topic I believe, The death penalty folks. Stay focused.

Quote from: pioteir on August 05, 2014, 03:38:54 PMThe question is What would You do if some foreign army marched straight into Your town and started killing people? Would You give up and die in peace? Would You run? Would You fight them to protect Yourself and loved ones?

I just said I would kill someone in self defense, and that I do not think that is morally right, but it's what I would do.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 05, 2014, 06:03:18 PM
I just said I would kill someone in self defense, and that I do not think that is morally right, but it's what I would do.

What would be immoral about it?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 07:10:05 PM
What would be immoral about it?

It is my opinion that is immoral. I think it's morally wrong to take the life of another person.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 05, 2014, 07:11:08 PM
It is my opinion that is immoral. I think it's morally wrong to take the life of another person.

You would allow someone to kill you on principles? (Sorry, misread your post.)

Killing someone who is trying to kill you isn't immoral.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 07:42:34 PM
You would allow someone to kill you on principles?

Of course not. What is the purpose of this question?

Quote from: pioteir on August 05, 2014, 03:38:54 PM
Where do you get off by saying that killing is ALWAYS wrong? Like there are some universal objective truths or whatever.

Where did I say killing is always wrong?

QuoteThe invading troops wouldn't care less about how You feel. The question is What would You do if some foreign army marched straight into Your town and started killing people? Would You give up and die in peace? Would You run? Would You fight them to protect Yourself and loved ones?

This isn't about what "I" would do. This is about the standards of morality posed by society, and, from my point-of-view, how hypocritical they are.

-Nam

Quote from: Mermaid on August 05, 2014, 07:43:39 PM
Of course not. What is the purpose of this question?

I added a note. My computer is posting before I'm done typing. Stupid thing need a bullet to the head.

As a combat veteran I can say with some confidence that one never knows what they'll do in a life-and-death situation until they've been in one, and that attitude doesn't necessarily convey to the next time.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 07:42:34 PM
You would allow someone to kill you on principles? (Sorry, misread your post.)

Killing someone who is trying to kill you isn't immoral.

Haha, no problem. I was wondering.

I think it is immoral. That is just my opinion. I would do it, but it would mess me up terribly in the head.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 07:56:29 PM
As a combat veteran I can say with some confidence that one never knows what they'll do in a life-and-death situation until they've been in one, and that attitude doesn't necessarily convey to the next time.

As the victim of a violent crime, I will back you up on that.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 05:19:31 PM
Better to live on your knees than die on your feet? Gotcha. Stay out of the way if something like that happens.

No, it is better to live on your feet than die on your knees, which is what throwing your life away at an enemy army that you stand zero chance against would be. All you would be  is another number on their papers, as would be the one or two guys you managed to kill. That's REALLY sticking it to the man....

:roll:

I'll take surviving to fight another day over dying for nothing. If that makes me a coward, then your priorities are a little fucked.

Quote from: Shiranu on August 05, 2014, 08:02:05 PM
No, it is better to live on your feet than die on your knees, which is what throwing your life away at an enemy army that you stand zero chance against would be. All you would be  is another number on their papers, as would be the one or two guys you managed to kill. That's REALLY sticking it to the man....

:roll:

I'll take surviving to fight another day over dying for nothing. If that makes me a coward, then your priorities are a little fucked.

Or you're just a coward.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 08:14:52 PM
Or you're just a coward.

The coward would be the suicide by invading force. Only a fool would fight when there's 0% chance they'll survive.

Even armies retreat -- are they cowards, too? I dare you to call any veteran here who's been in a gun fight and retreated a coward.

-Nam.

Quote from: Nam on August 05, 2014, 08:31:13 PM
The coward would be the suicide by invading force. Only a fool would fight when there's 0% chance they'll survive.

Even armies retreat -- are they cowards, too? I dare you to call any veteran here who's been in a gun fight and retreated a coward.

-Nam.

Some guys have to stay behind to make sure the bulk of the forces can withdraw. Is that suicide by invading force? Is it immoral to kill as many of them as possible before they kill you?

i'd post the pic of a train de-railing but I don't have one....

Quote from: aitm on August 05, 2014, 08:35:29 PM
i'd post the pic of a train de-railing but I don't have one....

D rail is the one on the right.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 08:35:08 PM
Some guys have to stay behind to make sure the bulk of the forces can withdraw. Is that suicide by invading force?

By your standard of logic: yes.

QuoteIs it immoral to kill as many of them as possible before they kill you?

If the person has the option of fleeing, then, that's the most logical option to take. If the person has no other option  but to fight or die then either they must fight or die where they stand.

There's always a choice. If I choose not to fight that doesn't necessarily make me a coward.

-Nam

if you are going to assist in the de-railment of your thread, I shall not interfere. Have fun all, but i can see this swirling already.

Yeah, I guess it's realllll manly to sit on one's high horse and laugh at how "cowardly" everyone else is because they wouldn't respond to his hypothetical, 99% improbable situation the way he would.

It takes a realllll manly man to stroke his e-penis.

QuoteIs it immoral to kill as many of them as possible before they kill you?

No one said anything about it being immoral, we are just calling you an idiot for choosing to kill 1 or 2 of them and then either getting killed or tortured instead of running and being... you know... alive.

So fine, you go out guns blasing and kill one or two of them... and then what?

1. Their friend's are pissed off, meaning they will probably go out of their way to torture some other innocent people. Thanks.
2. Their ruler's give absolutely zero fucks.

So you managed to piss off a few grunts. Wooooooooow, what a contribution to the war effort that would be!

But hey, again... it is so easy to sit on your high-horse and shit talk. I'll take being called a coward any day by an apparent idiot than committing suicide to appease him. Sorry you have to deal with that :(.

Quote from: Nam on August 05, 2014, 09:02:29 PM
By your standard of logic: yes.

If the person has the option of fleeing, then, that's the most logical option to take. If the person has no other option  but to fight or die then either they must fight or die where they stand.

There's always a choice. If I choose not to fight that doesn't necessarily make me a coward.

-Nam

Suuuuure.

Whatever, I'll let you have the last laugh.

The two greatest men I have known, who had seen far worse shit than you ever will (and were anything BUT proud of it), never felt the need to run around and boast about how brave and courageous they were and put everyone else down for not meeting their standards. They both saw their fair share of killing in (one just  WW2 [thanks to a purple heart saving his troops), the other WW2-Korea-Vietnam) 30 years of various American wars, but never bragged about how efficient they were.

Maybe that's the difference; for my family it's not some badge of honour like you want to make it out to be, it was a simple matter of life and death (at least in WW2). A job, not some measure of how big their dicks were.

Talk shit about us "cowards" all you want; I have lived with real American heroes and have several family members still putting themselves in harms way, both military and police, and I know at least one of the veterans would never call someone a coward because they wouldn't throw their life away for nothing. But I guess they would probably not meet your standards of "real men" and would be "cowards".

Continue to make a fool of yourself though, but the initial insult has worn off once I realized how stupid you actually are. Toodaloo!

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 05, 2014, 10:16:01 PM
Suuuuure.

So, every single man who chose to go to Canada, prison, or elsewhere when they were drafted to fight in the unending and useless war that was in Vietnam -- they were all cowards?

-Nam