Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
So your argument is that we should lower ourselves to the standards of the criminal? Sorry, but I believe we as a nation are better then that. Obviously you as a individual are not.
|
Straw Man
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position
Not only can you not differentiate between different forms of Inflation and between Income and Wealth, you don't understand the difference between
murder,
kill and
slay.
A standard Cost-Benefit Analysis says that you execute murderers.
The State does not murder....neither do soldiers....they slay.
Some people through negligence or thoughtlessness or emotional outbursts kill. That makes them killers, not murderers.
And the US is not a nation, it is a federal republic. The Cherokee are a nation. No doubt your inability to grasp Political Science is on a par with your inability comprehend Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Killing humans is killing humans. Sometimes it is sanctioned and sometimes not. It is still killing humans. The only difference is the sanction.
|
No, the differences go far deeper than that.
Driving down the highway, a wasp flies into your vehicles and stings you on the neck, causing you to flinch and your vehicle careens across the median, striking the Smith Family SUV and taking the life of all nine members of the Smith Family.
Are you a murderer?
You took the lives of the Family Smith with malice aforethought? With premeditation? For personal profit or personal gain? In the furtherance of another criminal offense?
Really?
If you can't see a difference between murdering and killing, maybe you ought to get together with the other who can't even tell the difference between night and day.
Hell, even tribal groups in the Niger and Congo River Basins distinguished between male and female deaths. A "female death" was tantamount to offenses ranging from involuntary manslaughter to 2nd Degree Murder, and the punishment was banishment for 7 years. A "male death" was equivalent to 1st Degree murder and the penalty was death.
And yes, they even had a trial, weighed the evidence, cross-examined witnesses and had a jury...which consisted of every male of age in your village.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan
The death penalty should be abolished. Why should we stoop down to the level of murderers?
|
Why should I pay for your squeamishness?
Murderers are counter-productive to Society....they cost a lot of money and never turn a profit, not to mention they have proven to have no respect for the rule of law.
You take them into your home, you bathe them, feed them, clothe them, provide for their medical and sexual needs and train them on your own dime. And no, you can't claim them as a dependent and you don't get a tax dodge. And yes, if they escape from your home and murder again, you are civilly liable and criminally liable (aiding and abetting).
The restivus will keep our money and use it to do fun things and live life to its fullest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun
I think they should outlaw the death penalty. I don't agree that men have the right to decide life or death of other men. That's God's work.
|
Um, your god says to slay murderers and banish killers.
Reminding...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
