Father murders child over Xbox

[ramza]

I am afraid we will never agree on this, so this will be my last post since I grow tired of this argument.

 

Its all a matter of perception after all: you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am. Anyway, I simply cant agree with the idea of eliminating an individual just because he commited a crime. How can you even say that you don't want someone to exist? You will think I am way too soft but I find this terrible... Is that what you have been taught as a kid? Even though I am not a devout christian, I agree on the principles of christiannity. we don't have any right to decide whether one should live or die. If someone annoys you, you stop talking to him. If someone is a nuisance to society, either cast him out or lock him. If he is mentally disturbed, how can you even think about killing him? Such a person needs medical treatment... Personally, I dont believe that "evil deeds" are not performed by pure chance. A cold killer is either a very sick person or someone with childhood traumas, etc. In both cases, the person needs treatment and in the latter, the government has the responsabilty provide some prevention/information/education...

 

I just cant bring myself to agree with your statements. We do not live in the age of the Far West. We live in a coordinated, democratic society which should respect human life. Again, I believe our disagreement lies in a difference of culture. Human rights hold a much more important place in Europe than in the US and all occidental european countries are very attached to those values. Have ya ever heard of the European Convention of Human Rights? Well, even though you have some amendments in the american constitution providing safeguards for some basic freedoms, it is in no way comparable to this Convention... So, I dont blame that much americans for supporting the death penalty...

 

From a moral point of view, I just condemn the death penalty for all the reasons I have previously mentioned... We must show mercy and take adequate measures without falling to the level of criminals, no matter what they have done or not done to us (since I have seen many people demand the death of some guy they don't even know for the sole reason he is a criminal...

 

Cheers.

Edited December 17, 2006 by ramza

[Volourn]

"Human rights hold a much more important place in Europe"

 

That must explain the Holcaust, the conuqering of various continents like NA or Afriaca. Sorry; but Europe is the last palce to brag about their love for 'human rightys'.

 

How 'bout the baby's right not to be murdered by daddy because it wrecked the video game? R00fles! Doesn't the baby have a right.

 

The diea that you actually believe you are morlaly superior to me because you want to give a basic free pass to a scum murderer is silly. I believe it makes you morally INFERIOR as it makes you uncaring and inhumane towards the victim of the heinous crime not to emntion the others arround the poor soul.

 

Anbd, the exuse that something must be 'wrong' with him is silly. Some humans can do relaly abd thinsg without having some 'sickness' that cna be diagnosed and then 'cured'.

 

So, take your Europena arrogance and go wathc some videos and read some books about the Holocaust and what you did to the people of the NA continent when you invaded... mmkay?

Edited December 17, 2006 by Volourn

[alanschu]

Most people whom commit murder are incapable of feeling remourse

 

I'm pretty sure that that is not true.

 

 

but if all States in the US were allowed to use and enforce the Death Penalty, and it could be done without so much red tape and BS, then they would not be looking for round about laws to keep certain people in prison and away from society for a life time.

 

Instead you'll be issuing more apologies to families of the wrongfully accused that are now dead at the hands of the government.

 

 

Most people turn to crime because of circumstance, and generally because the system has failed them in some way.

 

Then what's with all that talk about psychopathy? Psychopaths do not commit murders out of circumstance.

 

Throwing them into a dark pit with nothing, never to see the light of day again is simply returning to the dark ages.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if executions happened much more frequently in the dark ages. I'd certainly consider it more akin to the "dark ages" than putting someone in a cell.

 

 

The death penalty does not serve as a deterrence, and I feel allowing it sends the wrong message to the rest of society.

 

Furthermore, a disproportionate number of murder convicts that get executed tend to be both poor and from minorities. People without high quality legal counsel (i.e. public defenders) tend to have juries and judges consider their crimes more worthy of execution moreso than those that can afford higher quality attorneys.

 

The judicial system is not perfect, and can never be perfect. And unless it is perfect, I'd never support the death penalty.

[Pidesco]

The way I see it, the only possible justification for the death penalty is economical. Meaning it's cheaper to kill criminals than to keep them in prison.

 

Apart from that, there's no plausible reason for it other than vengeance. And vengeance should never be the basis for any modern judicial system.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Pidesco

[alanschu]

I have heard that executions aren't as cheap as we would think they are, but cannot offer anything to substantiate this claim one way or the other.

[Pidesco]

But they're certainly cheaper than keeping a guy in prison for 30 years (or whatever).

 

Besides, it only takes one cheap bullet to kill a man.

[ramza]

"Human rights hold a much more important place in Europe"

 

That must explain the Holcaust, the conuqering of various continents like NA or Afriaca. Sorry; but Europe is the last palce to brag about their love for 'human rightys'.

 

How 'bout the baby's right not to be murdered by daddy because it wrecked the video game? R00fles! Doesn't the baby have a right.

 

The diea that you actually believe you are morlaly superior to me because you want to give a basic free pass to a scum murderer is silly. I believe it makes you morally INFERIOR as it makes you uncaring and inhumane towards the victim of the heinous crime not to emntion the others arround the poor soul.

 

Anbd, the exuse that something must be 'wrong' with him is silly. Some humans can do relaly abd thinsg without having some 'sickness' that cna be diagnosed and then 'cured'.

 

So, take your Europena arrogance and go wathc some videos and read some books about the Holocaust and what you did to the people of the NA continent when you invaded... mmkay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ooooo, something is smelling... Is that you volo?

 

No, seriously, you seem to have misinterpreted all I have said in my previous post... I never said that I was morally superior to anyone: all I was trying to say is that people have different moral compasses and mine was against the death penalty. Secondly, I never said that Europe is superior to the US but it is a fact that we a stronger system of protection of human rights (just take a look at the Convention of human rights at wikipedia). This Convention was adopted after WW2, so I dont have the pretense to say Europe was the heaven of human rights before that. Moreover, it took a long time to establish those rights. However, we can affirm today that those rights constitute the common values of all western european countries and that it would be inadmissible for most europeans to re-introduce the death penalty. So, there IS a difference of culture within the two continents. I surely wont blame America for their position anway...

 

Then, you talk about the baby's right to live... Of course this was a horrid crime and I am 100% in favor of punishing this man, but in the just way... You cant simply kill him for that. As I have said, if he sick, put him in a facility for people mentally disables, otherwise, let him rot in a cell. If his case wasn't so extreme, we could have even given him a chance to re-enter society after putting him in some re-habilitation programs. This guy deserves prison for life anyway. Moreover, how does it make inhuman and insensitive for trying to protect that guy from the death penalty sentence? There must be an incoherence in what you are saying, so stop taking drugs, volo... Is it human for you to wish for this guy's death while you dont even know him or his family? is it even human to wish for ANYONE's death and be happy when it comes?

 

Finally, I still believe, no matter what you say, that people do not behave "badly" for no reason. There is most of the time a reason behind it (mental defficiency, social background). It is true that some people are simple bastards or irresponsible (I am not sure whether this guy would enter this category since no SANE parent would beat their children to death for such a PETTY thing, unless he was proven to be on drugs or to be alchoholic). Anyway, any of those reasons do NOT justify their actions. These people should take responsability and suffer the consequences for their actions. Incarceration is the best solution as long as it is proven that these people constitute a real threat for the public order... Just NO death penalty... It is an especially cruel sentence no matter what the other did... besides, death is not a punishment... you are just saving him the trouble of wandering in this lowly world suffering from the consequences of his actions in jail (living all your life in jail is one of the worst things that can happen to one who once had a home, a family, etc...just like this guy).

 

Chill up, volo! Go take a shower!

[Guard Dog]

I would change my stance on the death penalty if we could reform our prisons. If all murder convicts were kept in total isolation, 8X6 cells with no windows 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year with no TV, no books, no human interaction of ANY kind (their meals will be slid through a slot in the door) for every day until they die of natural causes, then I will go along with abolishing the death penalty.

 

In the US, prisoners get cable TV in their cells for free. Free use of a library (with tons of legal materials). A free college education if they choose, It's B.S. If it were up to me, if you have a 5 year sentance you would spend evey minuite of that 5 years in that 8X6 cell with no one to talk to, no liberal psychobable about "reforming" you. I guarantee you one thing, no one who served time will want to go back.

[Guard Dog]

"if we are civilised people living in a TRULY democratic country"

 

I doubt yuou know what TRUE demcoracy. Going by a trued emocracy, the majority in this threa dwould win which means bye bye child murderer.

 

I don't thinbk he should be tortured; but he should be punished and not felt pity for, and that includes up to the death penalty.

 

Cold blodded murderers deserve nothing less. If it wa spossible to 'redeem' him then sure; but as otehr spoint out; this isn't a fairy tale wher ethe bad guy tm will see the error of his ways and reform.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You been drinking today Volo?

[Mortis Nai]

I am afraid we will never agree on this, so this will be my last post since I grow tired of this argument.

 

Its all a matter of perception after all: you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am. Anyway, I simply cant agree with the idea of eliminating an individual just because he commited a crime. How can you even say that you don't want someone to exist? You will think I am way too soft but I find this terrible... Is that what you have been taught as a kid? Even though I am not a devout christian, I agree on the principles of christiannity. we don't have any right to decide whether one should live or die.

 

My Parents raised me under the general principles that everyone is equal, life is always precious, love they neighbor as thyself, war is bad, do no harm etc etc etc

 

Through life experience I have found this to be a falsehood, while it is a nice ideology and it would be wonderful if we could all get along, if there was no need for war, that no one would do harm to their fellow man... life simply does not work that way.

 

I do good deeds, I help my fellow man, I bring food to the homeless on our street, I help my neighbors, I am kind and patient and giving... but I know that war and death are a necessity in the society that we live in.

 

But if someone threatens me or mine... Woe be to them, for no god, no hell and and no fury know not the bounds of my wrath and vengeance.

 

A little baby... is a complete innocent to this world... anyone whom would hurt such innocence... does not deserve to live.

 

 

If someone annoys you, you stop talking to him. If someone is a nuisance to society, either cast him out or lock him. If he is mentally disturbed, how can you even think about killing him? Such a person needs medical treatment... Personally, I dont believe that "evil deeds" are not performed by pure chance. A cold killer is either a very sick person or someone with childhood traumas, etc. In both cases, the person needs treatment and in the latter, the government has the responsabilty provide some prevention/information/education...

 

There is a huge and vast difference between someone annoying you... and someone killing a baby.

 

If someone aggravates me, yes I ignore them... if someone was to murder a member of my family, I would not think twice about killing the SOB in retribution, in as slow and painful a way as possible.

 

 

I just cant bring myself to agree with your statements. We do not live in the age of the Far West. We live in a coordinated, democratic society which should respect human life. Again, I believe our disagreement lies in a difference of culture. Human rights hold a much more important place in Europe than in the US and all occidental european countries are very attached to those values. Have ya ever heard of the European Convention of Human Rights? Well, even though you have some amendments in the american constitution providing safeguards for some basic freedoms, it is in no way comparable to this Convention... So, I dont blame that much americans for supporting the death penalty...

 

Sheep and Wolves... however we do not live in a Democracy, the US & UK are both Representative Republics, there is no such thing as a "Democracy" in this world... its a Utopian ideal that is fundamentally flawed in more ways than you can shake a stick at.

 

As for a Difference in Culture, I was Born in Leicester England, I moved to Aberdeenshire, Scotland when I was 10 years old, Lived there until I was 17 and then moved Chicago, IL to the US (A state that does not have the Death penalty by the way.)

 

And yes, I am well aware of my Human rights, I actually memorized them. This discussion would involve Article 3, Article 5... your solution of Locking them up with nothing Violates Article 5, 6, 22, 25 and 27.

 

Also, just in case you wanted to know, the "European Declaration of Human rights" was changed to the "Universal Declaration of Human rights" of which all countrys in the UN must adhear to, includeing the US that is also accountable for upholding both the Universal Human Rights as well as it's own constitution.

 

 

From a moral point of view, I just condemn the death penalty for all the reasons I have previously mentioned... We must show mercy and take adequate measures without falling to the level of criminals, no matter what they have done or not done to us (since I have seen many people demand the death of some guy they don't even know for the sole reason he is a criminal...

 

Cheers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Compassion, Kindness and Mercy are all good things, but they only stretch so far, and in some situations someone has to deal with the ugly truth and do what other people "Do not wish to" on account of there own Morality, but that does not mean that it is not a necessity.

 

Some people have to get there hands dirty, so that everyone else can live happy lives and pretend that we live in an ideal world where everyone can stand on principal.

 

 

Just In case you ever wished to know, here are your human rights.

 

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

 

    On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

 

PREAMBLE

 

      Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

 

      Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

 

      Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

 

      Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

 

      Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

 

      Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

 

      Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

 

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

 

Article 1.

 

      All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

 

Article 2.

 

      Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

 

Article 3.

 

      Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

 

Article 4.

 

      No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

 

Article 5.

 

      No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Article 6.

 

      Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

 

Article 7.

 

      All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

 

Article 8.

 

      Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

 

Article 9.

 

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

 

Article 10.

 

      Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

 

Article 11.

 

      (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

 

      (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

 

Article 12.

 

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

 

Article 13.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

 

      (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

 

Article 14.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

 

      (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 

Article 15.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

 

      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

 

Article 16.

 

      (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

 

      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

 

      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

Article 17.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

 

      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

 

Article 18.

 

      Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Article 19.

 

      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 

Article 20.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

 

      (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

 

Article 21.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

 

      (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

 

      (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

Article 22.

 

      Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

 

Article 23.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

 

      (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

 

      (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

 

      (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

 

Article 24.

 

      Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

 

Article 25.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Article 26.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

 

      (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

 

      (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

 

Article 27.

 

      (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

 

      (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

 

Article 28.

 

      Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

 

Article 29.

 

      (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

 

      (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

 

      (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 

Article 30.

 

      Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Pidesco]

You say that some bad things are needed for things to function normally. Would you care to elaborate on that? How is war needed, for example? More importantly, how is the death penalty needed?

[Mortis Nai]

But they're certainly cheaper than keeping a guy in prison for 30 years (or whatever).

 

Besides, it only takes one cheap bullet to kill a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its not quite that simple.

 

Currently it costs a lot more to use the Death penalty than to imprison someone for 40 years or more, but that is because of the insane amount of checks, balances and red tape that goes along with it.

 

However when I reference Capital Punishment I am not speaking of the exact system we have in place at the moment, more rather hearing the verdict and taking "old yella" out the back to a merciful end at the barrel of a shotgun.

 

Someone goes on death row they are there for a Life Sentence before they actually face the chair, most people sentences to death die in prison during the long wait and the US actually Kills far less people than you would think. The Number of people that face the Electric Chair is relatively few, even in states such as Texas.

[ramza]

Anyway, I wont analyze each of the things you have said, but I will make a small correction. The UN declaration of human rights is quite different from the European convention of human rights. As a law student, I can tell you there is a huge difference. The UN declaration is just a declaration, which means that it doesn't have any binding value. Some states may take it inot consideration in their legal systems but there isn't an external controlling body checking if they apply correctly the declaration. On the other hand, the european convention IS legally binding, meaning that there is an independant european court of human rights controlling the application of this convention. If it discovers that a state has violated a specific article of the convention, it will render this state liable and will make it pay huge fines, order it to change its laws and, depending on the cases, give damages to the individuals that suffered from that violation. It is important to say that thanks to this system, protection of human rights has considerably increased during the last 20 years in europe and it is not by chance that all specialists call europe "the sanctum of human rights".

 

I dont say that the US dont respect human rights, but I believe they havent gone as far as that Convention has in this field. Death penalty is an example of this (I wont get into details since the protection guaranteed by the Convention isnt perfect but is nonetheless considerable).

Edited December 17, 2006 by ramza

[Pidesco]

But they're certainly cheaper than keeping a guy in prison for 30 years (or whatever).

 

Besides, it only takes one cheap bullet to kill a man.

 

Its not quite that simple.

 

Currently it costs a lot more to use the Death penalty than to imprison someone for 40 years or more, but that is because of the insane amount of checks, balances and red tape that goes along with it.

 

However when I reference Capital Punishment I am not speaking of the exact system we have in place at the moment, more rather hearing the verdict and taking "old yella" out the back to a merciful end at the barrel of a shotgun.

 

Someone goes on death row they are there for a Life Sentence before they actually face the chair, most people sentences to death die in prison during the long wait and the US actually Kills far less people than you would think. The Number of people that face the Electric Chair is relatively few, even in states such as Texas.

 

 

That's the whole system of applying the death penalty in the US that's stupid, it's not the death penalty that is expensive in itself. Besides, that's just more reason to abolish the death penalty.

 

By the way, if a guy killed your daughter you feel you should have the right to dispose of him as you see fit, right? Now imagine that specific guy had a family of his own, doesn't his family, by your logic, also have right to kill you after you murder him?

[Sand]

I rather protect the rights of the victim than the rights of the killer. This man, without thought or real provocation, killed his child. He deserves death.

[Mortis Nai]

You say that some bad things are needed for things to function normally. Would you care to elaborate on that? How is war needed, for example? More importantly, how is the death penalty needed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We live in a hostile world, Humanity is not as "Enlightened" and "Civilized" as we would like to think.

 

Were discussing one man that slaughtered his innocent child because he thought she broke his X-Box, what makes you think that Nations do not escalate to the same levels of depravity and stupidity?

 

"We don't like your god, convert or we will kill you."

 

Until we can destroy religion & economics, and ensure every man woman and child on this planet has food in there mouths, a roof over there head, an education, medical care... then we will always have war and we will always need a means to protect and defend what is ours, as well as take by force that which we want.

 

Humanity as a whole, are violent animals by nature, kept in line only through tools of fear.

 

I would love to beleive in a Utopian ideal, where everyone in the world is equal and we all love our fellow manl... but we Assasinated Ghandi and Nailed Jesus to a Cross... So untill that Utopia comes around, Im looking out for me and mine.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Mortis Nai]

By the way, if a guy killed your daughter you feel you should have the right to dispose of him as you see fit, right? Now imagine that specific guy had a family of his own, doesn't his family, by your logic, also have right to kill you after you murder him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One is an unlawful act against an innocent, one is a Lawful act against a Criminal.

 

We as a Civilized Society have rules and laws that dictate our response and course of action when someone violates those laws.

 

Applying your Circular Logic, when our troops come back from war we should place them in prison for Murder or being accomplices to Murder... the real world simply does not work like that.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Pidesco]

So you believe that mankind cannot change and that we are all fundamentally rat bastards who can never look beyond their own noses?

[Mortis Nai]

So you believe that mankind cannot change and that we are all fundamentally rat bastards who can never look beyond their own noses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, that sums it up in a nutshell.

 

While I know that there are some good people in the world that can rise above it, there will always be those whom drag humanity down once more, just like crabs in a bucket.

[Guard Dog]

So you believe that mankind cannot change and that we are all fundamentally rat bastards who can never look beyond their own noses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe that is our nature. If you are a creationist then you believe we were made in God's image but fell. Yes we did, hard and far. If you are an evolutionist then we are animals descended from animals and how could you expect any better from us? But those of us who are able to move beyond our base instincts deserve to be protected from the ones who don't. I'll agree the death penalty is not effective as soon as Ted Bundy kills another college girl, Tim McVeigh blows up another building, etc.

[Dark_Raven]

So you believe that mankind cannot change and that we are all fundamentally rat bastards who can never look beyond their own noses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Humankind excels at destruction.

[Pidesco]

The important bit here is not the inherently violent nature of man, but the belief that we cannot change. That's just daft.

[Mortis Nai]

The important bit here is not the inherently violent nature of man, but the belief that we cannot change. That's just daft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Individuals can change, but the your never going to have a 100% success ratio, and while there is still one person in the world that will Murder, Rape and Pillage then the rest of society will play the Victim and Humanity will not be able to go about the next big social evolution.

 

What have we as a society accomplished in 2000 years? As far as I can tell were still pretty much struggling with the "Lets not Kill each other and help each other instead" thing.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Pidesco]

Why are you never going to have a 100% success ratio?

[Mortis Nai]

Because some people will kill there own children because they thought they broke a $600 toy, and place Money and Possessions in higher esteem and value than human life.