Hell Kitty Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 How constructive of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_i_am Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Judge Hades strikes again! (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 How constructive of you! I also disagree on this. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Kitty Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 How constructive of you! I also disagree on this. Then we are in agreement. Good day to you sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qt3.14159 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 The real problem with enforcing a death penalty is not that some guilty person dies, but rather that someone has to carry out the sentence. The executioners generally have the same psych profiles as those they are putting to death. Taking a life alters a person irreparably and the reason "civilised" countries don't put people to death is that they understand the harm it does to the person enforcing the penalty. Anybody here catch that? All I understood was 'very'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xard Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_i_am Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 That's not true, it saves a few bucks! (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 That's not true, it saves a few bucks! That is right. it is far more cost effective to use a bullet than clothe and feed a irredeemable murderer for 30 to 60 years. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I want teh kotor 3 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all Nothing inhumane about a bullet to the back of the head, he'd be dead before he could feel anything. Furthermore, after you kill someone, you evidently have no respect for human life, so why should you keep yours? In 7th grade, I teach the students how Chuck Norris took down the Roman Empire, so it is good that you are starting early on this curriculum. R.I.P. KOTOR 2003-2008 KILLED BY THOSE GREEDY MONEY-HOARDING ************* AND THEIR *****-*** MMOS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xard Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) That's not true, it saves a few bucks! That is right. it is far more cost effective to use a bullet than clothe and feed a irredeemable murderer for 30 to 60 years. Because obviously money is the most important value in the world. It is also ok to spend trillions dollars on weapon industry but heaven forbid you use tax payer's money to, say, also how do you know who is irredeemable and who is not? no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all Nothing inhumane about a bullet to the back of the head, he'd be dead before he could feel anything. Furthermore, after you kill someone, you evidently have no respect for human life, so why should you keep yours? Killing by itself is wrong. Always. It doesn't matter if you kill your kids by putting meds to their glass of water they get before night or do you torture enemy soldier to death. Or put bullet in head of convict. And maybe just system and human beings would thrive to be something BETTER than their antagonists, not to regress back on their level? That's the principle message of Jesus and countless other philosophers, religious figures and thinkers in human history. If you regress you're no better than they are. (off-topic: I find it very funny many "pro-life" activists who side against abortion on the other hand are just fine with death penalties) Edited August 6, 2008 by Xard How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Architect Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I'd say we build a giant supermax prision underground in the middle of interior Alaska. The prisioners will be confined to an 8X8 cell with no windows 24-7-365. They never leave their cells. They can receive no mail, no reading material, no TV or entertainment of any kind. They can recieve no visitors and take all meals through a slot in the door so they never see each other. And the lights will be on at all times so there will be no sense of day or night or any way to measure the passage of time. Then we take all death row inmates, transfer them there to live out their natural lives and abolish the death penalty. Anyone have a problem with that idea? I think that's a bloody great idea. Ask yourself this. If you had to choose between that or a bullet to the head, what would you choose? The latter, right? It's quicker, easier, done and dusted. The former, however, is not something you'd want to experience. Who doesn't know that a long, drawn out punishment that leads to the same result as a quick and easy punishment is worse? Shouldn't we give these mongrels the harshest punishment? Of course we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 Xard, we are humans. Killing is what we do. Something cannot be "inhumane" when it is core fundamental truth of the human beast. Murder is the act of an unlawful killing of another individual. A person who comments murder has no respect for the laws that bind our society. The laws that keep us from tearing each other's throats out. Those who have absolute no respect of the law to the point that they are capable of murder are irredeemable. Also it is not just money, but the overall use of resources. Those resources that keeps a murderer sustained could be used to maintain the health and well-being of a worthwhile individual. By conserving resources for those who deserve and need them, and denying them to those who are irredeemable is the most effective way to maintain a lawful society. There are "philosophers" and religious mumbo-jumbo that thinks that humans are above this but we aren't. We kill, we sleep, we procreate, and we defecate. Everything else is just details. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Architect Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Sand, we kill for survival. That is when it isn't inhumane, because a large chunk of the time there is compassion and minimal suffering for the animals that belong to the food chain of humans in general. But humans ARE NOT part of our ****ing food chain. We do not need to kill humans for survival, hence killing humans is inhumane, is wrong. Edited August 6, 2008 by The Architect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 Really? If you have tribes who need a single resource to survive, they will fight and kill each other so the stronger tribe can survive. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Architect Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Of course. Like I said, the only time killing another human being becomes acceptable is if we need to for survival. But we, personally, don't. In this instance there's no need to kill this fat bald murderer and rapist guy with a ranga beard, either, when he can be thrown away for life and be eliminated as a threat to humanity while having to suffer for years the emotional scars of his crimes, the feelings of shame, guilt and regret. If he does not feel bad about his actions then he needs to rot on earth then burn in hell, so to speak, rather than just being sent straight to hell to burn without rotting first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) Burn in hell? Don't tell me you actually believe such nonsense exists? I do think that Guard Dog has a good idea. It would be a good compromise for those who want the death penalty and those who don't. Edited August 6, 2008 by Sand Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathScepter Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 i do argee with Sand on this. equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qt3.14159 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 i do argee with Sand on this. equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that! Anybody here catch that? All I understood was 'very'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadly_Nightshade Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 i do agree with Sand on this. equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that! Well, that was once the view of the Catholic Church. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kor Qel Droma Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 The real problem with enforcing a death penalty is not that some guilty person dies, but rather that someone has to carry out the sentence. The executioners generally have the same psych profiles as those they are putting to death. Taking a life alters a person irreparably and the reason "civilised" countries don't put people to death is that they understand the harm it does to the person enforcing the penalty. Let the other inmates carry out the executions, then. Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Er, dont they have three guys do the "killing" regardless of method? Only one is actually cotrolling the kill switch but none know which of the three is the live one. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I want teh kotor 3 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Burn in hell? Don't tell me you actually believe such nonsense exists? I do think that Guard Dog has a good idea. It would be a good compromise for those who want the death penalty and those who don't. Yeah, that is a pretty good idea, except for the Alaskan people who have to leave when they build it. i do argee with Sand on this. equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that! I like it too. In 7th grade, I teach the students how Chuck Norris took down the Roman Empire, so it is good that you are starting early on this curriculum. R.I.P. KOTOR 2003-2008 KILLED BY THOSE GREEDY MONEY-HOARDING ************* AND THEIR *****-*** MMOS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Thats a bit like a firing squad, some of them get blanks. Really odd though, as if all these methods somehow make a difference. Spiritually, philosophically or otherwise. The guys who work the injectors call themselves technicians. They are executioners. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyCrimson Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 The man's not even fat. I'm going to have to agree w/this. He doesn't look morbidly obese in that picture, certainly. Ridiculous defense argument no matter how you serve it up. Haha. If you're for the death penalty in the first place, I don't see any rational objection to gun or even guillotine vs. lethal injection. *shrug* “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure79 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I agree. We should use his biomass as a fuel source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now