Full Version: death penalty
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Um, na_th_an, all the South American problems was caused because of Communism, too. Some of it was from Russia, some of it was home-grown, I believe.

And, the US lost the Vietnam war, and it was a liberation from Communist invasion, you know.

Also, I wouldn't characterize this as an economic war. Although a few fools might protest, Communism is not an economic system, it is a political system. The communism that occured in much of the Soviet Union, and still does occur in that area, would make corruption in capitalist countries look like stealing candy in comparison.

Don't forget your human rights abuses under both Soviet and Chinese communism. That is not characterized as an "economic system". The socialist economic system that developed from Russian communism and Chinese communism (up to a few decades ago in China) was incredibly wasteful and inefficient.

Prime example: aural sea. Do you know what it looked like a half century before? Now look at it.

Another example:
worker A, worker B. Worker A sees that worker B is hardly working at all. Worker B gets the same pay regardless of work because the Communist government pays them both the same amount. Worker A decides to MOVE TO THE CAPITALIST USA because worker A realizes this idiocy will ultimately lead to collapse of the government.

If you think about it, it's a wonder that the Soviet Union, and its Communism, lasted as long as it did. Only two factors kept it together: government oppression and a worker ethic that lasted for quite a while. (ie: the worker A/worker B scenario didn't occur until the last decades of the Soviet Union)

Anyone who wishes to reply to me can save your breath, because I'm not replying back. I lived in Russia, and none of you did. None of you know about communism more than me.
Quote:Um, na_th_an, all the South American problems was caused because of Communism, too. Some of it was from Russia, some of it was home-grown, I believe.

Okay. So Pinochet was home-grown. Noriega was home-grown. The arms that the SPARC use grow in plants, like bananas.

And then a rambling about communism. You didn't reply my claims. I was not talking about communism. I was talking about the U.S.A. causing the lack of stability that made the countries not to develop.
na_th_an: as in the other post here, we're wasting our collective breath. Sad
They didn't develop because the US made a choice between communism and dictatorship.

And home-grown: That's home-grown communism, not arms.
Quote:I lived in Russia, and none of you did. None of you know about communism more than me.

Lots of Christians also say noone knows more about the bible than they do....
Quote:Btw oracle...the US is in a tremendous deficit, several trillions of US dollars, which it never intends to get itself out of. It's pathetic.

:o We're paying off debt, and you guys have that much? Something's gotta change... I was thinking about that story of how Uday or Qusay Hussein got their thesis by predicting the break up of the US in the 21st century... maybe they will be correct after all :o
...And so with one mighty post, SJ Zero got all his stupid comments and stupid replies out in one burst. This reply read:

SJ Zero Wrote:My response to the original question:

Nobody has the right to take the life of another person. Nobody.

Does anyone have the right to make people spend the rest of their life in a prison?

You're confusing life and death. If you're ever dead, you won't confuse the distinction again, because you'll be dead. That's an important point here.

The right of a state to impose punishment upon it's populace can be argued left and right all day, but in the end, it's something that has to be done for the good of society. Nations couldn't exist without being able to enforce basic rules of societal behaviour, and I have no great want or desire to discuss such things.

Regardless of the rights of governments and courts to punish felons with imprisonment, no man or court should have jurisdiction over whether a man be allowed to life or not, because to steal an arguement from a book I once read, only god can judge people with such final things as life and death, damnation and redemption. To take such things into your own hands is to proclaim that you are Gods equal, and that is, simply put, blasphemous.

For folks who want a real reason and not a biblical rationalization, consider one of two things: either, if we kill those who kill, who will kill the executioners, since they are guilty of the same crime? Shall we then execute the executioners executioners? Even if we have the executioners execute themselves, the what of the people who, for all intents and purposes "pulled the trigger" so to speak (because pulling a trigger won't kill anyone. A high speed piece of lead propelled by a charge of gunpowder detonated by a hammer which happens to be operated by that trigger kills people, and so too, a person who gets another to kill is simply using another person as others might use a gun), another thing, people who die are dead. Forget about all those cheezy religions, if you kill someone, you've extinguished a life. Nothing gives you a right or privilege to decide to do that. The people who calmly and rationally decide to do so aren't put in charge, they're put in jail and called monsters.

Quote:And what about self-defense? If someone is trying to kill you, or trying to kill someone in your family, are you seriously saying you don't have the right to kill them?

If you're defending yourself, you have no right to kill. If it happens that in defending yourself the attacker ends up dead it can be excused by law if circumstances didn't provide a good alternative(if you shoot someone in the face because they threaten to punch you, guess who goes to jail for a long time?), but people go to jail for killing in self defense quite often. It's not a full sentence(in fact, it's usually relatively light), but they do. Even in the eyes of the law, nobody has a right to kill another.

Quote:This sounds like leftist dreaming to me. (No, I am not a right-winger, I am a libertarian).

Don't bother trying to seperate ideas like this into left or right. It's wasted brainpower. Put a gun to a right wingers face and he'll not want the trigger pulled just like the lefty.

...and libertarian isn't a definition that fits into the left wing/right wing meme. It's a political party, and a theory of how the government should be run. The two are like saying "I don't like apples more than oranges, I drive a porsche". Ironically, the libertarian philosophy is incredibly close to the original philosophy of the republican party. Perhaps you're more right wing than you think?

Quote: If the guy is dead he cant commit the crime again. But what if the guy has reformed, really made a 180 with his life, is it right to kill him for what he did?

What if the circumstances were such that no reform is possible, no 180 in his life, because the killing was a spur of the moment sort of thing, with no decline beforehand? How would a man who kills his wife of 20 years' lover after catching her in bed with him with ready-to-serve divorce papers on the kitchen table, who otherwise is a gentle and loving person with a long distinguished career behind him, turn his life around? Also, if many murders have extinuating circumstances such as these, is it so cut and dry that the person should be killed? Not many killers are pure raw evil, you know. Sure it feels nice to think that way when you're about to extinguish his life, but even killers have something other than killing in their lives.

Quote:It's up to you. We either execute Mr Serial Killer or we move him into a house next to yours. What's it going to be?

Why? If there's no reason to send him back into society after his sentence(punishment for the crime) is up, because the flaws in his personallity are irreversable and released he would kill again, then keep him away from people he can hurt, both for the safety of others and of himself. If the serial killings were a result of a fixable defect in his personality which has been fixed years prior, and his sentence has been completed, I'd invite the crippled old man over for coffee.

Of course, I've lived in the same house as a reformed convicted criminal, whose crimes were due to defects in his personallity which were fixed through medication, education, and work. Seeing a 40 year old man have to start as if he's 18 again is punishment enough for what he's done.

Quote:Nathan, you just finished saying that someone's scenario was hypothetical, and then went on to make the biggest hypothetical I have ever seen.

The difference is Na_th_ans hypothetical situation actually happened, and he mentioned several times where something just like it DID happen. Nobody is going to release Charles Manson and place him next door to some left-winger, unless there's a horrible horrible mix-up.

Quote:You are one of the sickest people I have ever seen.

If you know about WWII history, you would know what policies he did:

His National Socialist party spend millions on the war effort, including the torture camps, which imporved the German economy (and gave it a staggering debt). So even that in the long run hurt.

And OF COURSE the millions of Germans who agreed with Hitler, and went to his warm and fuzzy marches, were wrong. He completely devasted Germany, caused the torture and death of millions, and would have taken over all of Europe if it weren't for the UK and the US.

Yes, people who agreed with Hitler were wrong.

Ten thousand innocent people have been killed in the War on Terror. George Bush Jr. has run up the largest deficit in US history. He has also used nationalistic/jingostic furor to advance his causes.


Quote:in the UK, only the special armed police have weapons. Normal police officers dont carry weapons.


Quote: How do you know that the Iraqis wanted to be kept under a torture regime?

Yeah! Our regime of illegally holding them as "illegal combatants" indefinitely is so much better!

Quote:Uh, not really. Saddam Loyalists are people who used to regularly torture and exectute people just for speaking out against Saddams regime.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, I'll just accidentally kill your family. Don't worry though! If you disagree with my liberation of your household from the tyrannical despot ruler that is your dad, you're just one of the folks who used to spank kids! (ie. you have absolutely no idea what a war zone is like. You also seem to have problems with shades of grey. Work on that.)

Quote:I saw a documentary of Iraqis telling british reporters about the horrors they went through, showing them inside the now bombed out Iraqi secret police headquarters, where they were strung up with electrical cord, and beaten.

Would you like us to nuke the whole middle east? In spite of what you've been told, that's business as usual for many of the countries over there. It's happened to canadian citizens because of american law officers incompotence.

Quote:o, are you seriously saying that Saddam didn't torture people and fill mass graves? You are the first person, even from Europe, that I have ever heard say that.

This is called a strawman arguement. This involves taking a statement, twisting it into meaning something subtley different, then attacking the new meaning in an attempt to discredit the original idea. Just thought you'd like to know. Tongue

Quote:Have you noticed that all of the dirt poor countires are are socialist? You couldn't name one that isn't.

Canada. Thanks for playing.

Quote:Give me an example where our business exploits people in third world countries.

Nike. Thanks for playing.

Quote:Yes, our government is screwed up. We'll support one leader, he'll turn on us, and then we will fight a war with him. Yes, that sucks, but it isn't the doing of the free market, it is the doing of an overbearing government.
Actually, considering the real reason Bush ever got the slightest shot at the presidency, I'd say you're wrong.

He's the best leader money can buy.

Quote:Will those people who either work or die be better off when their jobs leave their country to go back to the US/Europe/Asia? Please answer this.
You're an upper middle class white male from the midwestern United States of America who still lives in his parents house, aren't you? I ask because only a person who has never had any real unfulfilled needs would see no problem with a 7 year old making a quarter per day.

Just a thought, mate.

Also, if these kids were working for a company based in their country, it would bring and recirculate wealth within their own country, strengthening the economy, so yes. If american companies got out, it would be better. Eventually, that 7 year old might be able to go to school even.

Quote:I wrote in caps because it seems that no one understands that

I think you do not know what caps are for, mate. Maybe it's the americanism. Here's a hint: If you think people don't understand you, saying the same thing louder won't change anything.

Quote:What is it about having foreign companies there that keeps them from still using their own methods of making an economy?

Learn basic economics before arguing basic economics again.

Thus Spake SJ Zero.
Oracle, don't be an idiot. New Zealand is a completely different country than the US. You can't compare the deficit of the US vs. the deficit of New Zealand.

How many countries do you know that have completely released their currency control to New Zealand's currency?
Quote:And, the US lost the Vietnam war, and it was a liberation from Communist invasion, you know.
No one won and no one lost. Countries simply dropped out of a war that continues to this day.
Quote:They didn't develop because the US made a choice between communism and dictatorship.

And home-grown: That's home-grown communism, not arms.

Okay. Then here is my point. I led you to it:

Why the heck has the US to make choices in other countries? That has a name: imperialism. That's why the world doesn't like the US: People don't like imperialist tirants.

Quote:Agamemnus wrote:
And, the US lost the Vietnam war, and it was a liberation from Communist invasion, you know.

No one won and no one lost. Countries simply dropped out of a war that continues to this day.

Exactly the same that happens in Afghanistan and now Iraq. While people in the U.S.A. think that it is case closed and that they won the war (well, they succeed in the illegal invasion, I would say), but it is not.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31