Another Oklahoma Fail

[Junior]

You are comparing:

a) a system which gives the alleged person a trial and if that person is convicted of a capital crime bad enough, the system has the ability (through a jury of the person's peers) to sentence that person to death.

b) a government that feels threatened by people who want change so they gas indiscriminately hundreds of thousands of people which includes elderly, women and children. And, has a so much of a higher rate of killing innocent people that it isn't even comparable.

Matching those two things together is nothing more than throwing something out there so outrageous it is an attempt to throw gas on the flames of the debate. It adds nothing.

Our government kills innocent people at a lower rate, so that makes it better.

And really, I wasn't comparing the two at all, because I agree, they aren't the same. I was making a commentary on his statement "We have the right to instate laws that allow us to take other people's lives when we deem it necessary (or warranted)", which, as I mentioned before could be broadly interpreted.

Additionally, it was meant to be an outlandish statement designed to address the question of why we feel it is alright for governments to deem people unfit to live and execute them in some circumstances, yet it is not alright in others. A moral question that would be avoided if we didn't kill our own citizens.

 

[tschu]

Generally I'm on your side of the death penalty argument, but a genocidal authoritarian government seem like a pretty poor way to go about arguing your point Junior. I know what you're getting at and I agree, but there are certainly degrees of wrong when it comes to a government killing people. It's all wrong, but at least the intentions and systems are set up for justice in the US, compared with the nonsense that is happening in Syria. Hell, you could make comparisons to Hitler if you want to take it there, but we wouldn't want to invoke Godwin's law would we? Dammit

 

[EbylHusker]

I've already clarified my point. As I said before, when you're ready to return to an actual discussion, let me know. Until then, I'll enjoy the ridiculousness that has resulted from your post.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Generally I'm on your side of the death penalty argument, but a genocidal authoritarian government seem like a pretty poor way to go about arguing your point Junior. I know what you're getting at and I agree, but there are certainly degrees of wrong when it comes to a government killing people. It's all wrong, but at least the intentions and systems are set up for justice in the US, compared with the nonsense that is happening in Syria. Hell, you could make comparisons to Hitler if you want to take it there, but we wouldn't want to invoke Godwin's law would we? Dammit

Junior,

Like tschu, I am for the most part on your side on this issue. Your tactics aren't the best.

 

[Junior]

Your tactics aren't the best.

Meh, oh well. If it makes people uncomfortable to think of the death penalty in those terms... well, that was my intent.

 

[EbylHusker]

Uncomfortable? No. But it's an intentional twisting of words that adds nothing to the discussion, and so serves as nothing but blatant trolling. Since you're still not ready to return to the actual discussion, I'll check back another time with the hope that you are.

 

[Junior]

Uncomfortable? No. But it's an intentional twisting of words that adds nothing to the discussion, and so serves as nothing but blatant trolling. Since you're still not ready to return to the actual discussion, I'll check back another time with the hope that you are.

Cool. Just don't hold your breath, please.

 

[funhusker]

Too summarize your positions;

A) It is wrong to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Because? It costs too much, it is cruel, an innocent person may be executed.

B) No problem killing unborn babies who have not harmed anyone.

So you think killing an innocent baby (fetus, actually, and generally not "alive") is horrendous . . . but killing an innocent adult is an acceptable risk.

Somehow that makes sense, I guess.

Let's just work with numbers here.

How many innocent adults have actually been killed by the death penalty? How many innocent babies have been killed by abortion?

It is not acceptable that an innocent person may be put to death but I don't think the fact that we will never be 100% accurate is enough to preclude it. If that is the case, then why even have a legal system at all? I mean we'll never get it 100% right so screw it, let people do what they want with no repercussions.

We probably shouldn't even begin to delve into your claim of a fetus being actually and generally not alive. I think that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads and you should've known better than to bring it up here.

Matthew 25:40-45

New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me,you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

(this applies to "born" humans also)

 

[tschu]

 

[JJ Husker]

Finally we agree. +1

 

[MLB 51]

The concept behind the death penalty is that it's supposed to be a deterrent. The bloodlust being thrust upon those who advocate the death penalty is fun, I guess, but the histrionics of "You're stooping to their level" doesn't do much to further a real discussion on the matter.

I don't really think it is "histrionics" to bring up the stooping to their level argument. In the eyes of God, if you have one, isn't the commandant "Thou shalt not kill"? I don't recall him qualifying the statement by saying "Thou shalt not kill unless you really want to because you think this person deserves it."

Wrong. The proper translation from the original Hebrew text is, "Thou Shalt Not Do Murder."

 

[VectorVictor]

Too summarize your positions;

A) It is wrong to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Because? It costs too much, it is cruel, an innocent person may be executed.

B) No problem killing unborn babies who have not harmed anyone.

So you think killing an innocent baby (fetus, actually, and generally not "alive") is horrendous . . . but killing an innocent adult is an acceptable risk.

Somehow that makes sense, I guess.

Let's just work with numbers here.

How many innocent adults have actually been killed by the death penalty? How many innocent babies have been killed by abortion?

It is not acceptable that an innocent person may be put to death but I don't think the fact that we will never be 100% accurate is enough to preclude it. If that is the case, then why even have a legal system at all? I mean we'll never get it 100% right so screw it, let people do what they want with no repercussions.

We probably shouldn't even begin to delve into your claim of a fetus being actually and generally not alive. I think that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads and you should've known better than to bring it up here.

Matthew 25:40-45

New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me,you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

(this applies to "born" humans also)

It's posts like this that make me think that contemporary Christianity is only good for making idiots of our citizenry and holding our Country back from being great.

 

[Ulty]

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/05/01/sarah-palin-jesus-fought-for-death-penalty-until-day-he-died/

Sarah Palin: ‘Jesus Fought For Death Penalty Until Day He Died’

"I know the liberals hate it when you start mentioning the Bible," she told the pair, "but the truth is Jesus fought for the death penalty until the day he died. He was a tireless advocate of being tough on crime and making sure the criminals can't be out there raping and murdering people.
"In ancient Jerusalem crime was rampant. The Romans and their pagan morality wouldn't allow the proper punishment wrongdoers deserve. So Jesus lobbied for capital punishment in order to protect the Christians and the Jews from the Palestinians and other Muslims who were killing people left and right.

"Unfortunately Jesus' ideas were never implemented and the Roman Empire fell as result. But here in America we've always followed Jesus' advice on the death penalty, and that's why we have the lowest crime rate in the world."

 

[carlfense]

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/05/01/sarah-palin-jesus-fought-for-death-penalty-until-day-he-died/

Sarah Palin: ‘Jesus Fought For Death Penalty Until Day He Died’

"I know the liberals hate it when you start mentioning the Bible," she told the pair, "but the truth is Jesus fought for the death penalty until the day he died. He was a tireless advocate of being tough on crime and making sure the criminals can't be out there raping and murdering people.
"In ancient Jerusalem crime was rampant. The Romans and their pagan morality wouldn't allow the proper punishment wrongdoers deserve. So Jesus lobbied for capital punishment in order to protect the Christians and the Jews from the Palestinians and other Muslims who were killing people left and right.

"Unfortunately Jesus' ideas were never implemented and the Roman Empire fell as result. But here in America we've always followed Jesus' advice on the death penalty, and that's why we have the lowest crime rate in the world."

Ulty, you probably know this . . . but just so everyone is aware . . . the Daily Currant is like the Onion.

 

[sd'sker]

is that real? she could not have honestly said that.

edit: i did not know that. until i looked at other headlines.