Death Penalty

[Allen Walker]

What do you think about it? I think that it depends on what the suspect did. If he murdered someone, then I'm for it. Any other, I really dont know..... it all depends on what he/she did.

Thoughts ?

[Devious]

Same here, depends on the severity of the crime. If the criminal is a psychopath that cannot be released into normal society, kill him. If he killed someone accidentally, no way. If he killed them out of spite and anger, give him a chance. Then kill him. lol jking. :nod:

[Fenristh]

Hmm. I think in some cased it should be put in place. e.g. Kiddy fiddlers who lock kids in their basement.

[Alphonse]

What do you think about it? I think that it depends on what the suspect did. If he murdered someone, then I'm for it. Any other, I really dont know..... it all depends on what he/she did.

Thoughts ?

Same here. It depends of what the criminal did.

[Lifrasthir]

I heard they got rid of the death penalty in New Jersey. Dunno if it's true or not.

I believe it depends on the severity of the crime.

[Alphonse]

Thats somehting I didnt know. Over here ther making a law that lets you carry guns to protect yourself but I think they said no to that.

[Lifrasthir]

Ah, but in Kansas we're allowed to carry concealed guns around. :shifty:

[Alphonse]

LOL Ill go ther noe of this days.J/K

[N O C T E]

I think that if you killed someone on purpose then you should get the death penalty. Unless you a minor, then you would be put on normal murder charges, like life in prison.

[Alphonse]

Yeah. Dont know why people dont get deaed penelty when they kill someone. Ive seen it a lot.

[Rikku]

I think that if you killed someone on purpose then you should get the death penalty. Unless you a minor, then you would be put on normal murder charges, like life in prison.

A life in prison? You may as well just kill them.

[Alphonse]

Yeah. Whays the point of kipping them alive.

[Devious]

There are plenty of people who'd much rather live in captivity rather than die. We don't have the right to say which would be better for them.

[Alphonse]

True. We dont decide who lives or who doesent only laws I guess.

[XxFeaRLeSsxX]

Really? I'd rather die then suffer a lifetime of darkness

[Alphonse]

Seriosly?! You dont want to live in a prison insted of dying!? Well same here.

[Rikku]

There are plenty of people who'd much rather live in captivity rather than die. We don't have the right to say which would be better for them.

We also technically don't have the right to say who can live and who can die. Killing those who killed is just like a flimsily justified form of hypocrisy. :/

[Devious]

We also technically don't have the right to say who can live and who can die. Killing those who killed is just like a flimsily justified form of hypocrisy. :/
Ever heard the saying "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?" I fully support that ideal. You kill someone purposefully and brutally, you get killed. It's not hypocrisy. Killing for the sake of killing is wrong. Killing in the name of justice is right. Now the problem with that is what defines justice. And yeah, we may not have a right to judge who should live and die, but if not us, then who? The killer? The dead victim?

[Rikku]

Ever heard the saying, "The problem with an eye for an eye is that everybody goes blind"? It's not 'right'. You only think it's 'right'.

Killing is killing. Saying something like 'You killed somebody, so I'm going to kill you' is the worst argument I've ever heard. Just because they did it, does it justify you doing so? That's like me saying that because you stole five bucks from somebody, it makes it right for me to steal from you. It's just hypocrisy, pure and simple.

And who does have the right to judge who should live and die? The answer is, in my opinion, nobody. Saying that we magically have that kind of right because nobody else does is like saying that I have the right to eat that apple that nobody should because nobody else can. It's like saying that I have the right to shoot you because nobody else does.

[Devious]

Ever heard the saying, "The problem with an eye for an eye is that everybody goes blind"? It's not 'right'. You only think it's 'right'.

Killing is killing. Saying something like 'You killed somebody, so I'm going to kill you' is the worst argument I've ever heard. Just because they did it, does it justify you doing so? That's like me saying that because you stole five bucks from somebody, it makes it right for me to steal from you. It's just hypocrisy, pure and simple.

And who does have the right to judge who should live and die? The answer is, in my opinion, nobody. Saying that we magically have that kind of right because nobody else does is like saying that I have the right to eat that apple that nobody should because nobody else can. It's like saying that I have the right to shoot you because nobody else does.
What about the tooth? Everyone gets a cavity?

Well the victim is dead, so there's really no one more qualified than you to decide whether the murdurer lives or dies.

No, it's more like a bully steals money from a guy, then you beat the bully up, take his money, find out that the bully's victim is in Fiji and is never coming back, and having no choice but to keep the money. Not really wrong, is it?

wtf if you're the only one who can eat the apple then FREAKING EAT IT. :blink: Don't let it go to waste.

Yeah, but you'd need a valid reason to shoot me. If I did something wrong go ahead. It's not like the justice system kills innocent people because they have the right to. They don't even have the right to kill guilty people, they're just the closest to having the right.

btw the saying is actually "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" said by Ghandi. What a surprise.

[Rikku]

And what's wrong with Ghandi? And what do you mean there's nobody more qualified than you? What about the victim's friends? His or her family? And even then, why are they qualified? They'd be acting out of vengeance.

Cough. Jason, would you think it's right to beat up the bully in the first place? Revenge is hardly a way to justify causing harm to somebody.

And if nobody is allowed to eat the apple yet, why should you give yourself the authority to eat the apple?

It's not even a matter of you doing something wrong. I'm saying just because nobody really has the right to persecute the victim, to shoot you, why should we decide that, 'Oh, we have the right to decide whether or not he lives or dies'. Why should I get to decide if I can either let you live or not? Because I'm speshul? Because I'm egotistical? Because I'm the epitome of justice?

I'm not talking about the justification of the action, I'm talking about why you get to carry out the action in the first place. The right to kill.

In that vein, why did the killer kill in the first place? Because he's insane? They'd have a different sentence for that. Because it was out of self-defense? They would have a different sentence for that as well since it's manslaughter, not murder. What if it was out of revenge, like it often is? To get somebody to pay back for another action they had previously done?

So then what seperates us from the killer? You can argue that the killer actually killed and the victim may have or may not have, but in the long run, both killings are out of revenge.

[Cathryn]

A life for a life.
Thats how i role. XD

[Devious]

And what's wrong with Ghandi? And what do you mean there's nobody more qualified than you? What about the victim's friends? His or her family? And even then, why are they qualified? They'd be acting out of vengeance.

Cough. Jason, would you think it's right to beat up the bully in the first place? Revenge is hardly a way to justify causing harm to somebody.

And if nobody is allowed to eat the apple yet, why should you give yourself the authority to eat the apple?

It's not even a matter of you doing something wrong. I'm saying just because nobody really has the right to persecute the victim, to shoot you, why should we decide that, 'Oh, we have the right to decide whether or not he lives or dies'. Why should I get to decide if I can either let you live or not? Because I'm speshul? Because I'm egotistical? Because I'm the epitome of justice?

I'm not talking about the justification of the action, I'm talking about why you get to carry out the action in the first place. The right to kill.

In that vein, why did the killer kill in the first place? Because he's insane? They'd have a different sentence for that. Because it was out of self-defense? They would have a different sentence for that as well since it's manslaughter, not murder. What if it was out of revenge, like it often is? To get somebody to pay back for another action they had previously done?

So then what seperates us from the killer? You can argue that the killer actually killed and the victim may have or may not have, but in the long run, both killings are out of revenge.
Is this really going anywhere?

When you are sentenced to death, it's not for revenge. The government doesn't have a score to settle with the killer, it's to prevent the killer from killing any more innocent people. And the relatives and friends of the victim are more biased, and therefore less qualified to decide whether the killer lives or dies.

The apple thing is why you pick up pennies on the ground. Someone's gonna get it eventually, so why not take it for yourself? Even in human society, it's eat or be eaten. (though not literally) If you keep letting only other people take what you could've gotten (eg, someone offers you a job, you decline and someone else gets it) you'll fail at life.

Revenge isn't a justifiable way to kill someone, but justice is. They stole money, you steal it back.

Actually, you know what it all comes down to? Who has the most power. The one with the most power will always be the one who decides whether you live or die. It's not always gonna be fair.

[Devious]

A life for a life.
Thats how i role. XD
Exactly.

(sorry double post)

[Rikku]

It's called an edit button.

Somebody evidently lost the penny or didn't care much for it. It's not really anybody's at that point, so you pick it up. A job offer is not forbidden to accept or anything. :/

So, then, what do you define as justice? Of course the government doesn't have a score to settle with the killer. The government is only killing the killer because he's killed somebody. The killer killed the victim because the victim evidently did something bad enough to set him off. What's the difference in thought?

So now you've come to the conclusion that it's because that they have the most power. Does that make it right? Of course not; you've admitted that it's not fair, so you've just totally contradicted your points that it is justice.

[Cathryn]

I don't go with juctice.

Still despite the fact even if the killer is mentally unstable, it was evedent they made the decision to take anothers life.
I think the only way anybody could possibly get anything back from it was for the killer to pay his or her own life.
They look a life from this earth, now they must repay that sin with their own.

(my opinion so don't start balling me with government crapp)

[XwingsofaresX]

I don't go with juctice.

Still despite the fact even if the killer is mentally unstable, it was evedent they made the decision to take anothers life.
I think the only way anybody could possibly get anything back from it was for the killer to pay his or her own life.
They look a life from this earth, now they must repay that sin with their own.

(my opinion so don't start balling me with government crapp)

wow thats...great^_^
what i think is everyone deserves a second chance. of course like cathryn, people become obsessed with death and such. think about it. some people at my school died of suicide for certain reasons. maybe they were rebels. but it all sums up to the fact that people choose their paths and eventually lead to their ends.

that.was.weird.:lol:

[Rikku]

I don't go with juctice.

Still despite the fact even if the killer is mentally unstable, it was evedent they made the decision to take anothers life.
I think the only way anybody could possibly get anything back from it was for the killer to pay his or her own life.
They look a life from this earth, now they must repay that sin with their own.

(my opinion so don't start balling me with government crapp)

Have you ever met a mentally unstable person?

Have you ever thought about what mental issues do to a person?

They might have evidently made the decision to take somebody else's life, but they're not even thinking straight. Perceptions are blurred. Sometimes just totally messed up. And they can't help it, because mental instability obviously isn't something that goes away with a snap of the fingers.

And if you're not thinking along the lines of justice, and you're thinking that the killer must pay up, there are cases where killers think that the victim has to pay up. It's why you get a shooting in one part of city, and a few hours later, one in another part.

So if you're both looking for somebody to 'pay up', where's the difference in thought? Where?

[Devious]

wait, wtf did I make a post after yours or was I just delusional? I think it's gone. :blink:

[Rikku]

.... no, I believe all the posts are intact. XD

[Devious]

.... no, I believe all the posts are intact. XD
No I'm SURE I made a post replying to your mentally unstable thing, and either I forgot to press the "Submit" button or an admin deleted it. For being offensive to mentally unstable people or something like that. -o-

Wait, you can't really offend mentally unstable people cuz they're either offended by everything or nothing they're MENTALLY UNSTABLE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.

Then again I suppose you could offend the relatives and friends of mentally unstable people, and that would be just as bad. Except you don't have a murdurous mentally unstable person out to git j00. -0-

WHY ARE YOU ONLY ACTIVE IN THE SERIOUS DISCUSSION BOARD YOU AREN'T EVEN SERIOUS.

[Rikku]

Since when did offending mentally unstable people come into play? I was saying that mentally unstable people were still people, albeit people who can't really think straight. So they may have murdered somebody, but they weren't thinking clearly, and therefore they don't really deserve the same treatment as a perfectly sane killer.

And I'm a lot more serious than most other people. Plus, I love nitpicking at your responses =D

[Devious]

Since when did offending mentally unstable people come into play? I was saying that mentally unstable people were still people, albeit people who can't really think straight. So they may have murdered somebody, but they weren't thinking clearly, and therefore they don't really deserve the same treatment as a perfectly sane killer.

And I'm a lot more serious than most other people. Plus, I love nitpicking at your responses =D
I just said that since my post seems to have vanished... Maybe I just closed my comp before I pressed submit or something...

[Cathryn]

Have you ever met a mentally unstable person?

Have you ever thought about what mental issues do to a person?

They might have evidently made the decision to take somebody else's life, but they're not even thinking straight. Perceptions are blurred. Sometimes just totally messed up. And they can't help it, because mental instability obviously isn't something that goes away with a snap of the fingers.

And if you're not thinking along the lines of justice, and you're thinking that the killer must pay up, there are cases where killers think that the victim has to pay up. It's why you get a shooting in one part of city, and a few hours later, one in another part.

So if you're both looking for somebody to 'pay up', where's the difference in thought? Where?


CANT BE BOTHERED TO REPLY :cunning:

[Devious]

CANT BE BOTHERED TO REPLY :cunning:
OMFG SPAM. :crazy:

[Cloud Strife]

Rev... you call that a SPAM??? I dont' see how that is a spam... all she said was that she couldn't be bothered to reply...

[Devious]

Rev... you call that a SPAM??? I dont' see how that is a spam... all she said was that she couldn't be bothered to reply...
Technically it is spam since this is the serious dicussion board, and you should have lengthy, meaningful posts, but I wasn't serious since the whole page and the last few posts on the last page all don't meet the criteria.

[Cathryn]

It wasn't intensional. XD
I just lacked the want to type anything more meaningful than that. :cunning:

[Demon Eyes]

I don't see how people can justify killing a person or not based on the seriousness of the crime. You are ending a life, how can you justify that?

[Halfmetal]

An eye for an eye. That's how. It's not mercy but it is justice.

[Demon Eyes]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind...

[Mirrain]

An eye for an eye. That's how. It's not mercy but it is justice.

Justice how? It's okay for us to trust a government to commit murder because someone else did?

So by that rationale we are required to follow the laws of whatever country we live in, one of the most serious being "don't kill", but if you do, they go against that very rule you are supposed to follow and execute you. Sounds a little hypocritical don't you think?

Justice for that in my mind is a life term in jail without the luxuries of life most people enjoy. Prisons are far too good to inmates anyway. They live better than most poor people.

In the end no one has the right to play god.

[Halfmetal]

Justice how? It's okay for us to trust a government to commit murder because someone else did?

So by that rationale we are required to follow the laws of whatever country we live in, one of the most serious being "don't kill", but if you do, they go against that very rule you are supposed to follow and execute you. Sounds a little hypocritical don't you think?[/quote

Justice for that in my mind is a life term in jail without the luxuries of life most people enjoy. Prisons are far too good to inmates anyway. They live better than most poor people.

In the end no one has the right to play god.

It's a bit more complicated than that. There are really two rules regarding that:
1) Don't kill unless judgement has been passed on and they're guilty of murder.
2) Only the Judge can pass on judgement.

It wouldn't be hypocritical that way.

[Demon Eyes]

Sure it would. Killing someone for killing is hypocritical anyway you look at it.

[Halfmetal]

W.T.F?!?!? Could you at least explain the flaw in my logic or are you just disagreeing with me to piss me off?

[Drognar]

Depends on the recieving the pentaly, if the person was an asshole who didn't respect people and killed purely of out spite, then sure give him the death pentaly. Although if the person has good reason just through him in jail.

[Demon Eyes]

It's a bit more complicated than that. There are really two rules regarding that:
1) Don't kill unless judgement has been passed on and they're guilty of murder.
2) Only the Judge can pass on judgement.

It wouldn't be hypocritical that way.

Who is a Judge? Why should he have the power to decide who lives and who dies?

[Halfmetal]

You know, that guy with the hammer who goes order, order. He is supposed to bring about justice and that would include who lives and who dies becuase they believe that's part of justice. They don't believe that all types of killing is wrong and so long as that is the case they aren't really hypocrites. You can say all that all types of killing is wrong but that doesn't mean they should believe it.

Besides, I'm sure you don't believe that all types of killing is wrong. You have exceptions too. I think everyone does.

[Demon Eyes]

Well the fact is we are all individual gods, we have the power to create and destroy life. I don't think any killing can be 'justified'. And you still didn't answer my question, why should a human judge be given the power to decide the fate of other humans? As Tupac once said, "Only God can judge me." If you want revenge, I say take it by your own hands. The judicial system is fucked anyway though, so whatever.

[Halfmetal]

I understand that. But you have to understand that all of what you just said is all your opinion. You just expect others to automaticaly believe you, so those that agree with the death penalty aren't really hypocrites. They just differ in opinion.

Besides, I did answer your question. A human judge can be given the power to decide the fate of other humans if the society believes that this is the only way to do justice.

What you've described as the best way to do justice is Anarchism.

I'm not saying either one is right or wrong. I'm just saying that they differ.

[Demon Eyes]

That's hardly anarchism. I don't expect people to believe me, but if you support the death penalty, it is a hypocritical judgment. It's like if you believe stealing is bad and you steal from someone, you are a hypocrite. But I guess if you don't believe killing is bad, then you could support that judgment without being a hypocrite.

[Halfmetal]

I told you how it's not hypocritcal. Why must you keep on doing that? It's only hypocritcal if they believed that all types of murder is wrong, but they don't.

[Demon Eyes]

Murder is murder. The only logical way to justify murder would be self defense. Yet it is still murder, just goes without punishment. Why are we even debating this, sounds like your defending something you don't even agree with.

[Tifa_xoxo_Lockhart]

yea i dont support the death penalty i think that the person should have to go through exactly wat their victum(s) went through thats wat i think at least

[Halfmetal]

Murder is murder. The only logical way to justify murder would be self defense. Yet it is still murder, just goes without punishment. Why are we even debating this, sounds like your defending something you don't even agree with.

I don't but what you're saying is wrong. Like I said they don't believe that all types of killing is wrong. They're only saying that civilians shouldn't murder other civilians. There's nothing contradictory about that. I've said this already. All you seem to be doing is repeating your point. I've already addressed this.

"Murder is Murder" - Sentencing someone to death isn't murder. Murder is definied as the unlawful killing of one human being by another.

"The only logical way to justify murder would be self defense." - There's nothing logical about that. That's just your opinion. And that's murder by the way.

"Yet it is still murder, just goes without punishment" - Okay, that bit I don't quite understand

By the way, what you suggested IS Anrachism as you are rejecting the judge who is a mouthpiece for the governments laws. In order for the Government to govern it's people it must also judge them. If you rejct the Judge then you reject the Governement, and hence it is Anarchism becuase Arnarchism is the rejection on the Government.

[Demon Eyes]

I told you how it's not hypocritcal. Why must you keep on doing that? It's only hypocritcal if they believed that all types of murder is wrong, but they don't.

Looks like you consider it murder in this post.

"Sentencing someone to death isn't murder. Murder is definied as the unlawful killing of one human being by another."

Man you change opinions fast.:rolleyes:

You get too hung up on definitions, that's your problem. Take a step back and look at the situation.

How is self defense not logical? Kill or be killed. Guess our logic differs.

But in the end, they are doing what they tell us not to do, which IS hypocritical.

[Ringlets]

Life imprisonment is a lot better. Annoyingly, that doesn't always work due to parole and "good behavior". I'm sorry, since when does someone who's killed 360 people get to walk back home because they said thank you to Gert for pouring gruel on his palette? Killing someone also tends to create martyrs among the extremist communities, whereas putting them in prison lets them suffer psychological hell in all its wonders.

[Demon Eyes]

Ya murder should be life with no parole.:thumbsup: Let their own demons destroy them.

[Halfmetal]

Looks like you consider it murder in this post.

"Sentencing someone to death isn't murder. Murder is definied as the unlawful killing of one human being by another."

Man you change opinions fast.:rolleyes:

Yes, I'm sorry for that. They probably do believe that all murder is wrong so my first point was actually wrong. Well, the wording was anyway. The other point is not opinion. It is a fact.


You get too hung up on definitions, that's your problem. Take a step back and look at the situation.

What do you mean?


How is self defense not logical? Kill or be killed. Guess our logic differs.

That's not logic though. It's opinion. 'Our logic' actually means 'our opinion'. Logic on it's own is something entirley different. Logic on it's own can't differ between people.


But in the end, they are doing what they tell us not to do, which IS hypocritical.

THEY AREN'T! I've already explained this to you. What do you think it is that they are telling you not to do?

[Demon Eyes]

Kill people.

[Halfmetal]

But not all types of killing are wrong to them. Just murder. They say don't murder.

[Demon Eyes]

How do you know what 'they' believe? If this is your opinion, than stand by it, or don't. And just for the record you can receive the death penalty for crimes other than murder.

[Halfmetal]

How do you know what 'they' believe? If this is your opinion, than stand by it, or don't. And just for the record you can receive the death penalty for crimes other than murder.

How do YOU know what they believe? Look, I don't, but like I said, you can't assert they're hypocrits if your belief that their logic is contradictory is based on your opinion.

Can they? Well, I don't see what that's got to do with anything. We're talking about hypocrites aren't we?

[Demon Eyes]

That's why I'm asking for THEIR opinions. This is pointless going back and forth. Of course since your on their side your not gonna want to be called a hypocrite, but murder is when one person kills another person, and that is what happens in the death penalty. It doesn't matter why that person is being killed, it's murder. They just mask it with 'justice' and 'law'. And receiving the death penalty for something besides murder has everything to do with this thread, as it is titled, "Death Penalty."

[Halfmetal]

That's why I'm asking for THEIR opinions. This is pointless going back and forth. Of course since your on their side your not gonna want to be called a hypocrite, but murder is when one person kills another person, and that is what happens in the death penalty. It doesn't matter why that person is being killed, it's murder. They just mask it with 'justice' and 'law'. And receiving the death penalty for something besides murder has everything to do with this thread, as it is titled, "Death Penalty."

Do you have their opinion, yet? If you did then you would know that murder is NOT when one person kills another person, as I have told you. And that's not even opinion. That's fact. Stop saying that it is. That's just plain wrong.

You make it sound like justice and law shouldn't exist. Are you voting for Anarchism, then or what?

Look, you're saying that it doesn't matter why that person is being killed, and yet you say that killing for self-defence is okay. Isn't that hypocritical?

[Demon Eyes]

Do you have their opinion, yet? If you did then you would know that murder is NOT when one person kills another person, as I have told you. And that's not even opinion. That's fact. Stop saying that it is. That's just plain wrong.

You make it sound like justice and law shouldn't exist. Are you voting for Anarchism, then or what?

Look, you're saying that it doesn't matter why that person is being killed, and yet you say that killing for self-defence is okay. Isn't that hypocritical?

Anarchism is a far cry from being against the Death Penalty. So it's not murder because it is not unlawful? I think the laws go deeper than government, just because it's their law, doesn't mean it's fit for humanity. When I said it doesn't matter why that person is being killed, I was referring to the person in 'the chair'. Am I really so damn confusing? Or are you just trying to twist what I say? And when I said killing in self defense is OK, I stated that it is still murder, which it is. And the argument you have put forth so far is that the death penalty is not murder, which it is. As for my opinion I really could care less what the government does to it's prisoners, although I may disagree with their logic on things.

[Halfmetal]

Anarchism is a far cry from being against the Death Penalty. So it's not murder because it is not unlawful? I think the laws go deeper than government, just because it's their law, doesn't mean it's fit for humanity. When I said it doesn't matter why that person is being killed, I was referring to the person in 'the chair'. Am I really so damn confusing? Or are you just trying to twist what I say? And when I said killing in self defense is OK, I stated that it is still murder, which it is. And the argument you have put forth so far is that the death penalty is not murder, which it is. As for my opinion I really could care less what the government does to it's prisoners, although I may disagree with their logic on things.

I never said Anarchism is a result from being against the death penalty. I said Anarchism comes from rejecting the Governement. Don't put words into my mouth.<_<

Okay, I can accept the second point.

The person 'in the chair'. You're going to have to elaborate on that one becuase I don't actually understand.

Okay, you said that Self defence is okay and yet it is murder, whilst saying at the same time that murder is wrong. See the contradiction?

No, I never said that. I said that the death penalty is not murder, to THEM. They have a different opinion to what is lawful and what isn't. You can't just say that the death penalty is murder as if it's a fact. It's not. That's just your opinion. If they don't believe that the death penatly is murder, then they aren't hypocrites by saying that murder is wrong. Their logic (ie. their opinion) is not contradictory then.

[Demon Eyes]

Your the one who brought anarchism into this. So they came out of your mouth.

'the chair'.. on death row... gonna get fried in prison...

Hmm.. I don't think I've ever said murder is wrong. Just their logic on murdering people is wrong.

If there was no government and someone murdered your brother, so you capture him and execute him. Is that murder? The only difference here is that the government says it's OK. So without a government it would be considered murder?

[N O C T E]

If there was no government and someone murdered your brother, so you capture him and execute him. Is that murder? The only difference here is that the government says it's OK. So without a government it would be considered murder?

:|......Yep, murder is murder.

[Halfmetal]

Your the one who brought anarchism into this. So they came out of your mouth.

'the chair'.. on death row... gonna get fried in prison...

Hmm.. I don't think I've ever said murder is wrong. Just their logic on murdering people is wrong.

If there was no government and someone murdered your brother, so you capture him and execute him. Is that murder? The only difference here is that the government says it's OK. So without a government it would be considered murder?

What?!?! Just becuase I brought Anarchism into it doesn't mean I said THAT! Are you insane?!?!

Oh right. Well...what difference does that make?

You said that "the only logical way to justify murder would be self defence". That's a pretty strong hint. Okay, so now you're saying that not all types of murder is wrong then. There are exceptions. If that is so then you no longer have an argument. If you're allowed to have exceptions, why not them?

But would the government say it's okay? He should be tried properly. If I actually saw him and there was no goverment then yes I would probably kill him, in a fit of rage. But in my opinion, that's not murder, because I agree with what you said. Morality exists outside the Government. Anyway, even if you don't think it does, your argument fails. Killing the murderer can't be considered unlawful and hence murder if there is no government and hence no laws.

[Demon Eyes]

I have never said murder is wrong... yet again. Self defense is kill or be killed. Anyone who values their life will fight to protect it. It's instinct. The problem is they are executing people while saying do not execute people. You have two options, either allow people to execute, or don't execute anyone.

And why does it matter if the government says it's OK? I said imagine there is NO government. The only thing that makes the death penalty not murder is the government. What is the government? Just a voice of opinions. I feel like I'm arguing with a 5 year old right now...

[Halfmetal]

I have never said murder is wrong... yet again. Self defense is kill or be killed. Anyone who values their life will fight to protect it. It's instinct. The problem is they are executing people while saying do not execute people. You have two options, either allow people to execute, or don't execute anyone.

So which one do you go for?


And why does it matter if the government says it's OK? I said imagine there is NO government. The only thing that makes the death penalty not murder is the government. What is the government? Just a voice of opinions. I feel like I'm arguing with a 5 year old right now...

Ugh, If you look back, I think you'll find that I DID imagine there was no government. I'll just repeat what I said and tweek it a little:

"If I actually saw him and there was no goverment then yes I would probably kill him, in a fit of rage. But in my opinion, that's not murder, because I agree with what you said. Morality exists outside the Government. Anyway, even if you don't think morality does exist outside the governmet, your argument fails anyway. Killing the murderer can't be considered unlawful and hence murder if there is no government and hence no laws."

They were voted in by Democracy weren't they. If you don't agree with them then just vote for someone else. It matters what they say because they are trying to keep us in check, so they aren't just a voice of opinions. We asked them to be there. If you don't agree with the Governemnt trying to keep us in check then you are an Anarachist and you are following entirely different rules, if any, so there is no point in this debate.

[Demon Eyes]

If you killed your brothers murderer, that is murder. And since when do the people actually have a choice in what the government does?;) I am an Anarchist. I'm all for America, Fuck the government.

[Halfmetal]

Stop repeating your conclusion! It's not murder, I've already explained how. One can believe it's murder if you believe that morality is outside the government that it's unlawful to kill your brothers murderer, but that would only make it YOUR OPINION!

Look, you've chosen Anarchism, now can we just stop this fecking debate, now?

[Kitmitsu]

This thread turned into a discussion about Anarchy? Another serious thread, derailed. Demon Eyes, if you don't post properly in this forum you will be banned from this section. 2 word posts have no place here.

*Closed*