Church Gets One Right

Philboid Studge wrote

Thank you for reading my mind and informing me of my disingenuousness. I need someone like you to follow me around and let me know what "I'm saying."

I know, amazing isn't it?

If someone successfully plotted out my murder, it really wouldn't matter what I wanted, would it? There would be no I.

Yep, because he hasn't forfeited his life at all. Let's keep him/her fat and happy in prison while they to get back out again.

If someone unsuccessfully plotted out the murder of me and my loved ones, I would want him or her locked up. (Even if I wanted them dead, that's not really justice is it?)

It would keep them from murdering someone else.

I think what I'm saying is, laws of the land shouldn't be derived from the intense, perhaps crazed, emotional state a person would be in if his family were killed.

... Why not? Why keep them alive? They knowingly killed, there's proof without restraint. There's no reason to spend the thousands of dollars on a man that will just kill again.

Waddlie wrote

Not necessarily. The bible may say "an eye for an eye". I don't. You don't appear to know the difference between justice and vengence. My position is pretty much in line with Amnesty International's:

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE144302006

Snap, are you saying that the concept of human rights is questionable in its entirety, or just that Saddam doesn't deserve to have his respected?

Not to saddam, he had respect and power. He shouldn't have been killed.

Joe blow who actually plots and commits the act of murder... that's kinda violating someone elses rights... right? Why keep him alive?

[Waddlie]

snap crafter wrote

Not to saddam, he had respect and power. He shouldn't have been killed.

Joe blow who actually plots and commits the act of murder... that's kinda violating someone elses rights... right? Why keep him alive?

Just so I've got this straight in my head...

You're pro death penalty. But anti Saddam's execution because he had respect and power?

Do you have any idea at all what that man's done in the past 30 years?

Also, violating another person's rights does not mean that you forfeit your own rights. Human rights are inalienable.

You've also argued for the death penalty on the grounds of economics and population reduction. Perhaps instead of spending your school days trying to make a celebrity out of yourself you should actually have tried learning something, because you are disastrously, embarrassingly wrong on both counts.

[Rhinoqulous]

snap crafter wrote

Not to saddam, he had respect and power. He shouldn't have been killed.

Joe blow who actually plots and commits the act of murder... that's kinda violating someone elses rights... right? Why keep him alive?

Wait, so if you're rich and powerful, law and justice (whatever it may happen to be) don't apply?

Rhinoqulous wrote

Wait, so if you're rich and powerful, law and justice (whatever it may happen to be) don't apply?

Isn't that obvious?

Also, violating another person's rights does not mean that you forfeit your own rights. Human rights are inalienable.

The rest of what you wrote was just silly.

But this little tidbit gave me a giggle. So, you're saying that if I go out and rape/kill your mother, you would willingly pay to keep me fat and happy in a 'correctional facility'? That's neat.

[Choobus]

HomoCyclist wrote

Lately, Waddlie has been trying to annoy several Raving Atheists, Choobus, me and now you, snap.

Really? first I've heard about this? If people want to annoy me I really wish they would let me know about it.

[Choobus]

nkb wrote

Calling Choobus "a bit mean" is like calling Francis "a bit of a cunt". :D

I'm not mean, I'm just misunderstood. A lot.

[Choobus]

What is the difference between Saddam giving the order to gas the kurds and George Bush giving the order for "shock and awe?"

There is a reason why most civillized countries abolished the death penalty. As strange as it may seem to Texans et al, that reason was not "they are all fucking pussies".

[Philboid Studge]

Speaking of gassing the Kurds, there's a reason they didn't try Saddam for that. Had they done so, he would have been able to introduce evidence that showed he'd had the tacit US support for those killings, thanks to St Ronnie and Don 'Neverwrong' Rumsfeld. That probably wouldnt have been enough to embarass Preznit Monkey Boy, but US hypocrisy would have been laid bare (as if it aint already).

Fortunately they were plenty of other crimes to choose from. Choosing the executions of 148 Shias in Dujail for the show trial was a no-brainer, which is what the current US Administration excels at.

[calpurnpiso]

Philboid Studge wrote

Speaking of gassing the Kurds, there's a reason they didn't try Saddam for that. Had they done so, he would have been able to introduce evidence that showed he'd had the tacit US support for those killings, thanks to St Ronnie and Don 'Neverwrong' Rumsfeld. That probably wouldnt have been enough to embarass Preznit Monkey Boy, but US hypocrisy would have been laid bare (as if it aint already).

Fortunately they were plenty of other crimes to choose from. Choosing the executions of 148 Shias in Dujail for the show trial was a no-brainer, which is what the current US Administration excels at.

Exactly..but even if they had done that it would not have matter since over 70% of the Americans are christ-psychosis infected ignoramuses, and since they can't tell the difference between the US and other countries in the world, they decided to elect the greatest schizophrenic ignoramus of them all and other repugnant Christ-psychotics!. Once an infected brain will believe in resurrecting saviors that bleed to save humanity from sin, they'd believe in ANY OTHER IRRATIONAL DELUSION to be reality. Alas, doesn't our mentally ill POTUS believes jesus made him president? WHY is this ignorant imbecile NOT committed? and the equally infected congress allowed to spout their SCHIZOPHRENIC antics on the country plunging it to its ruin? The reason of it is clear. In a democracy the majority rules!..and 75% of Americans are infected with Christ-psychosis which induces IGNORANCE and HIGH STUPIDITY. This is the reason I BLAME the meek, pusillanimous, scare, insecure, AMERICAN NEUROLOGISTS!!....It is their fault we have a RETARDED SCHIZOPHRENIC along many other running the country! Mentally ill idiots should NEVER be allowed to run for public office. I'd love to see if the retarded meek and insecured American neurologists would board a plane to attend a convention, with a SCHIZOPHRENIA suffering pilot at the controls!!!...Retards.They are the ONLY people with the POWER to remove idiots like Bush from office.

[Philboid Studge]

Yeah, it's the fault of American neurologists. Shame on you scathach! Shame on you, Sam Harris!

[nkb]

Philboid Studge wrote

Your metrics confuse me. Do you know how many people Manson killed? Matthew Broderick has killed more (really). The names in your list are all pikers compared to President Monkey Boy.

I'll be honest, I made this list off the top of my head, going by notoriety more than anything else.

Philboid Studge wrote

I think the idea of a Human Value Committee is the way to go; we'll let it decide when someone's life is forfeit. Also, we should elimnate anyone who refuses to 'admit that some people have given up any claim to human rights.' As soon as someone is killed, we should immediately deputize the victim's family, giving them carte blanche to dispatch justice as they will.

As I mentioned earlier, I haven't really thought through all the details.

However, I will admit that my stance on capital punishment has mellowed quite a bit over the years. I don't know if that is related to living in Texas, or maturing with age, or a combination of both.

Rhinoqulous wrote

Wait, so if you're rich and powerful, law and justice (whatever it may happen to be) don't apply?

Well, that IS the way it works in the "greatest country in the world". Welcome to America. :nanner:

[Rhinoqulous]

HappyNat wrote

Well, that IS the way it works in the "greatest country in the world". Welcome to America. :nanner:

My point was that snap seemed to imply that the law shouldn't apply to these people. I fully concede that in practice it doesn't, but I believe that it actually should.