I simply don't want to pay food and board for murderers. Why should murderers continue to live, eat, watch tv, and sleep under a roof until they die. I don't want to pay for that. Keep murderers alive ?!?!
I'm not pro capital punishment. As punishment. Killing people for self-defense has a strong case. I'm also not for spending thousands of dollars to keep someone alive. In some sense, banishment seems more obvious.
It is because the society to tell the criminals it is okay to rape and murder and you are not going to be fatal. People response to incentive. For you murder a life and if you lucky enough without getting caught, you murder again until got caught but only get prisoning sentence, you won. You won man. For those who let easy on the criminals, when time come to your family or your loved one, please don't blame why. You ask for it.
+VermonterKen It's only a government overreach of power if we say it is a government overreach of power. If we don't say that it's a government overreach of power, then it's not a government overreach of power.
Bilbo Took Yeah... so you do agree that there is times when killing is moral, and morally justified. For you, morally speaking, it seems you feel that it is 100% immoral, for the State, to engage in any form of violence. That's fine. We don't agree, but at least we are now both clear that you are in no way a pacifist. For me, if that criminal had murdered an innocent in a premeditated fashion, they don't deserve to keep their own life. If you know how important it is to protect everyone's right to live, and be alive, then you too would value the killing of those who rob others of that right to be alive in a premeditated fashion.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. While it may be reflexive to want to murder those who commit atrocities, we must rise above them, show love and forgiveness. Certainly take their freedom, but we are not to commit murder, society and be autocracy do not change the law.
dennis cleverly repeats whats both effective and profitable for his general socio-political identity and position. we must remember, dennis plays a role in this world, and clearly his base demand certain requirements and have particular expectations. the idea of state mandated murder, or what was historically called human sacrifice, has been known for thousands of years in fact to be in and of itself unwarranted. namely through categorical imperatives, and elementary philosophy we know that granting anyone the right to murder, whether for retribution or deterrence, is as an end in itself wrong, but perhaps as a means effective, depending on situations. therefore as an end, can never, under any circumstance be justified. because its by definition not an act of defense, is therefore indefensible, lol, elementary philosophy, but it takes intellectuals in positions of power to obscure basic linguistic tools to such a degree that you enter a world of labyrinthine, indecipherable rhetoric. this is how the sausage gets made. first, incite your audience into becoming as irrational, hostile, and resentful as possible, then ask them to engage in a dialogue about policy....make people enraged, then ask them to decide. also he uses narratives and thought experiments that are fundamentally concerned with igniting the imagination, which means all that hate is actually not coming from any external reality, its coming from the minds of his audience and from his own mind....sure there are kernels of truth embedded in the stories he tells, but much of it asks the audience to exercise their imaginations, and its this very ability that has caused some of the greatest disasters in history. misguided delusions about people around us, scapegoating, false allegations, wrongful executions, persecuting the innocent....its all connected, namely to irrationality, which dennis thinks is a justifiable cognitive mechanism. we dont care how you feel dennis, we care about whats philosophically consistent and ethically civil, and these are things can be discussed only in Axiology. yes we feel for parents who had their children brutally murdered, what animal wouldn't? but how we feel should never, ever, be the method in which we examine the most crucial social and political questions, in fact it should be the last tool we use. dennis is too detached from true intellectual inquiry, that its hard to come to terms with how modern society finds anything in common with him, its a dark realization to say the least, but one we have to come to terms with if we are going to fight irrationality, and win.
I simply don't want to pay food and board for murderers. Why should murderers continue to live, eat, watch tv, and sleep under a roof until they die. I don't want to pay for that. Keep murderers alive ?!?!
I'm not pro capital punishment. As punishment. Killing people for self-defense has a strong case. I'm also not for spending thousands of dollars to keep someone alive. In some sense, banishment seems more obvious.
they could just come back then.
It is because the society to tell the criminals it is okay to rape and murder and you are not going to be fatal. People response to incentive. For you murder a life and if you lucky enough without getting caught, you murder again until got caught but only get prisoning sentence, you won. You won man. For those who let easy on the criminals, when time come to your family or your loved one, please don't blame why. You ask for it.
There is no moral case against the death penalty.
+VermonterKen It's only a government overreach of power if we say it is a government overreach of power. If we don't say that it's a government overreach of power, then it's not a government overreach of power.
Killing is wrong, period
Bilbo Took Most normal people would all agree that killing in defense of yourself is not wrong, period.
+MarketAndChurch In self-defence, OK. But if a criminal is in police custody or in any way contained, killing is absolutely unnecessary
Bilbo Took Yeah... so you do agree that there is times when killing is moral, and morally justified.
For you, morally speaking, it seems you feel that it is 100% immoral, for the State, to engage in any form of violence. That's fine. We don't agree, but at least we are now both clear that you are in no way a pacifist.
For me, if that criminal had murdered an innocent in a premeditated fashion, they don't deserve to keep their own life. If you know how important it is to protect everyone's right to live, and be alive, then you too would value the killing of those who rob others of that right to be alive in a premeditated fashion.
Be an organ and marrow donor please asap
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. While it may be reflexive to want to murder those who commit atrocities, we must rise above them, show love and forgiveness. Certainly take their freedom, but we are not to commit murder, society and be autocracy do not change the law.
dennis cleverly repeats whats both effective and profitable for his general socio-political identity and position. we must remember, dennis plays a role in this world, and clearly his base demand certain requirements and have particular expectations. the idea of state mandated murder, or what was historically called human sacrifice, has been known for thousands of years in fact to be in and of itself unwarranted. namely through categorical imperatives, and elementary philosophy we know that granting anyone the right to murder, whether for retribution or deterrence, is as an end in itself wrong, but perhaps as a means effective, depending on situations. therefore as an end, can never, under any circumstance be justified. because its by definition not an act of defense, is therefore indefensible, lol, elementary philosophy, but it takes intellectuals in positions of power to obscure basic linguistic tools to such a degree that you enter a world of labyrinthine, indecipherable rhetoric. this is how the sausage gets made. first, incite your audience into becoming as irrational, hostile, and resentful as possible, then ask them to engage in a dialogue about policy....make people enraged, then ask them to decide. also he uses narratives and thought experiments that are fundamentally concerned with igniting the imagination, which means all that hate is actually not coming from any external reality, its coming from the minds of his audience and from his own mind....sure there are kernels of truth embedded in the stories he tells, but much of it asks the audience to exercise their imaginations, and its this very ability that has caused some of the greatest disasters in history. misguided delusions about people around us, scapegoating, false allegations, wrongful executions, persecuting the innocent....its all connected, namely to irrationality, which dennis thinks is a justifiable cognitive mechanism. we dont care how you feel dennis, we care about whats philosophically consistent and ethically civil, and these are things can be discussed only in Axiology. yes we feel for parents who had their children brutally murdered, what animal wouldn't? but how we feel should never, ever, be the method in which we examine the most crucial social and political questions, in fact it should be the last tool we use. dennis is too detached from true intellectual inquiry, that its hard to come to terms with how modern society finds anything in common with him, its a dark realization to say the least, but one we have to come to terms with if we are going to fight irrationality, and win.