Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close (3 Viewers)

[noknobs]

Personally I think giving people like this the death penalty is the easy way out for them. To me they deserve to rot in prison and live a horrible life withering away to die.

I disagree. I don't like the idea of this guy getting room and board, making friends, laughing at times, etc. Him breathing while all his victims rot is fucked up. Their loved ones agree and that's the opinion I care about the most. Now they have to live knowing he's still alive. He'll probably outlive most of the parents. He just needs to die, the end. Some semblance of closure.

 

[noknobs]

I totally understand the desire for vengeance. I am sure I would feel the same.

But ... principles are for when it's hard. And I am opposed in principle to death penalty.

That's not failing the victims. That's saying if killing is wrong, killing is wrong. That's saying society should not fall to the level of this person who killed those students.

No. It's not that simple. Opposing the death penalty for a school shooter is ridiculous. That's not having a "principle", that's having a naive, simplistic view of the world. You have to take each case on its own merit.

And society wouldn't be falling to the level of killing a bunch of school children, what kind of nonsense is that?! Jesus Christ. How can you possibly make that argument with a straight face?

This didn't happen to you, and it's not still happening to you. You don't get to say you "totally understand".

 

[crandc]

I don't say I understand what it is like having a child murdered. I said I understand desire for vengeance against those who have done irreparable harm.

I oppose death penalty. Even for really horrible people.

 

[noknobs]

Those against abortion of any kind have a “principle”. They also think only in absolutes with no exceptions. All “life” is sacred. Lets care more about the existence of the tiny, unconscious embryo (school shooter in this analogy) than the life of the mother (relatives of murdered children). The continued existence of this mass of cells is more important than the mental health of a 16 year old rape victim who first had to endure the act and is now forced to confront it for the rest of her life. And if she were to abort she’d just sink to the level of her attacker. No matter the circumstances of inception, you shouldn’t be allowed to abort because it’s a matter of principal for someone else.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Those against abortion of any kind have a “principle”. They also think only in absolutes with no exceptions. All “life” is sacred. Lets care more about the existence of the tiny, unconscious embryo (school shooter in this analogy) than the life of the mother (relatives of murdered children). The continued existence of this mass of cells is more important than the mental health of a 16 year old rape victim who first had to endure the act and is now forced to confront it for the rest of her life. And if she were to abort she’d just sink to the level of her attacker. No matter the circumstances of inception, you shouldn’t be allowed to abort because it’s a matter of principal for someone else.

The opponents of the view you've (erroneously) equated to those who oppose capital punishment would contend that outlawing abortion violates the rights of pregnant women.

Are the rights of the families of the victims somehow being violated by not executing the victims' killer?

 

[noknobs]

The opponents of the view you've (erroneously) equated to those who oppose capital punishment would contend that outlawing abortion violates the rights of pregnant women.

Are the rights of the families of the victims somehow being violated by not executing the victims' killer?

That’s a dumber response than I was expecting, and I was expecting a really fucking dumb response.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That’s a dumber response than I was expecting, and I was expecting a really fucking dumb response.

So, whether or not people's rights are being violated is not relevant to a discussion on capital punishment, which is opposed on the basis of basic human rights?

Interesting...

 

[noknobs]

So, whether or not people's rights are being violated is not relevant to a discussion on capital punishment, which is opposed on the basis of basic human rights?

Interesting...

For an analogy, how is seeking justice for your murdered 14 year old child, as well as the continued trauma you endure, so much less important than violating your right, to the point that it makes my entire analogy “erroneous”? Isn’t trying to seek justice for your innocent dead child a right that someone should have? That’s not important enough to equate in an analogy? All while you simply ignore all the ways in which the analogy is actually pretty spot on.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

For an analogy, how is seeking justice for your murdered 14 year old child, as well as the continued trauma you endure, so much less important than violating your right, to the point that it makes my entire analogy “erroneous”? Isn’t trying to seek justice for your innocent dead child a right that someone should have? That’s not important enough to equate in an analogy? All while you simply ignore all the ways in which the analogy is actually pretty spot on.

You are equating arguments against killing an adult who has wronged your family to a arguments against allowing a woman to kill an unborn child growing inside her own body.

Yes, the similarities between the two are obvious. I'm not ignoring that, and I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that despite those obvious similarities, the massive difference between the two is sufficient to badly overwhelm the similarities.

And no, people do not have a "right to justice". And even if they did, what you're advocating for is not justice, but vengeance.

 

[noknobs]

You are equating arguments against killing an adult who has wronged your family to a arguments against allowing a woman to kill an unborn child growing inside her own body.

"Wronged your family". You can't even type it because you know it's every bit as fucked up as not allowing a woman to kill an unborn child growing inside her body.

Yes, the similarities between the two are obvious. I'm not ignoring that, and I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that despite those obvious similarities, the massive difference between the two is sufficient to badly overwhelm the similarities.

Life being taken and others ruined is not a massive difference, no matter how many ways you try to tell yourself it is.

And no, people do not have a "right to justice". And even if they did, what you're advocating for is not justice, but vengeance.

Says who? You?
So everyone has to rely on PtldPlatypus to tell them what kind of justice they can have when their child gets murdered. PtldPlatypus knows best.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Those against abortion of any kind have a “principle”. They also think only in absolutes with no exceptions. All “life” is sacred. Lets care more about the existence of the tiny, unconscious embryo (school shooter in this analogy) than the life of the mother (relatives of murdered children). The continued existence of this mass of cells is more important than the mental health of a 16 year old rape victim who first had to endure the act and is now forced to confront it for the rest of her life. And if she were to abort she’d just sink to the level of her attacker. No matter the circumstances of inception, you shouldn’t be allowed to abort because it’s a matter of principal for someone else.

I am absolutely opposed to killing people who aren't a threat to the public. People in prison are not a threat to the public.

I'm opposed to the government killing civilians as punishment in general. Government should not have the power to kill anybody unless they are an imminent threat to the public.

I absolutely understand people wanting to kill somebody who killed one of their loved ones. That is awesome human reaction. It is not something The government should engage in. The government should provide for the mental health of the survivors.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Isn’t trying to seek justice for your innocent dead child a right that someone should have?

No, not via the taking of life once the threat has been neutralized. The guilty party spending life in prison is justice.

If the threat hasn't been neutralized then absolutely, you're well within your rights, and justified in killing the S.O.B.

 

[noknobs]

I am absolutely opposed to killing people who aren't a threat to the public. People in prison are not a threat to the public.

Why did you specify "aren't a threat to the public"? We're talking in absolutes, remember?

So if he were still a "threat to the public" you'd be for the killing? Because being a threat to the public is worse than killing the public? Killing the public is in the past after all so it's totally not the same thing than if the guy were to kill the public. That's waaaayyy different.

The government should provide for the mental health of the survivors.

oh fuck @SlyPokerDog!

 

[noknobs]

No, not via the taking of life once the threat has been neutralized. The guilty party spending life in prison is justice.

You don't get to choose what justice for dead children is, dude. Again my whole argument is about the idea that this principle is all or nothing, and there are never exceptions. This is an exception… obviously.

If the threat hasn't been neutralized then absolutely, you're well within your rights, and justified in killing the S.O.B.

My God, your rationale and distinction for when it's okay to kill someone is so warped it's hard to believe you don't see it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Why did you specify "aren't a threat to the public"? We're talking in absolutes, remember?

So if he were still a "threat to the public" you'd be for the killing? Because being a threat to the public is worse than killing the public? Killing the public is in the past after all so it's totally not the same thing than if the guy were to kill the public. That's waaaayyy different.

If the government needs to kill a murderer to prevent them from continuing an active attack then it is acceptable. Once the killer has been apprehended and the threat has been removed there is no benefit to killing them.

Much like I support your right to kill somebody who you see trying to kill another person. But I don't support your right to just kill people you think deserve to die, but aren't an active threat.

I don't trust you to make that determination.

oh fuck @SlyPokerDog!

No thanks, but I do appreciate the offer.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You don't get to choose what justice for dead children is, dude.

But you do. I see...

My God, your rationale and distinction for when it's okay to kill someone is so warped it's hard to believe you don't see it.

I believe in self defense and defending others who are under active attack.

I do not believe in killing people who are not a threat.

I feel I've been pretty clear on that.

 

[noknobs]

Once the killer has been apprehended and the threat has been removed there is no benefit to killing them.

There's no benefit to not killing them. Killing them is a benefit to the victims. You know... the victims. If they matter? Maybe not. What matters more than all that is the principle of Phatguysrule.

Much like I support your right to kill somebody who you see trying to kill another person. But I don't support your right to just kill people you think deserve to die

Oh I know the problem, we're talking about two different things. I'm not referring to something I "think" happened. I'm not guessing. I'm talking about someone who killed 17 people.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

@noknobs do you think the death penalty should be something that is taken away from juries?

 

[Phatguysrule]

There's no benefit to not killing them. Killing them is a benefit to the victims. You know... the victims. If they matter? Maybe not. What matters more than all that is the principle of Phatguysrule.


Oh I know the problem, we're talking about two different things. I'm not referring to something I "think" happened. I'm not guessing. I'm talking about someone who killed 17 people.

There is no benefit to the victims by killing a murderer in jail.

We know that our judicial system has killed hundreds of innocent people.

Not killing those innocent people would have a significant benefit, IMO.

 

[noknobs]

But you do. I see...

I should have no say in the matter, I'm not the victim. You're acting like this would just be a Lynch mob type thing that I'm advocating. Sometimes the evidence is irrefutable to the degree it is in this case, and the crime is so heinous, that allowing that man to live is in my opinion morally wrong.

I believe in self defense and defending others who are under active attack.
I do not believe in killing people who are not a threat.
II feel I've been pretty clear on that.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I should have no say in the matter, I'm not the victim. You're acting like this would just be a Lynch mob type thing that I'm advocating. Sometimes the evidence is irrefutable to the degree it is in this case, and the crime is so heinous, that allowing that man to live is in my opinion morally wrong.

You have to stop with the personal insults, my friend.

 

[noknobs]

There is no benefit to the victims by killing and murderer in jail.

How the fuck do you know?

We know that our judicial system has no killed hundreds of innocent people.

Not killing those innocent people would have a significant benefit, IMO.

I'm talking about instances like this. There's zero doubt here. Zero.

 

[noknobs]

You have to stop with the personal insults, my friend.

I'll think about it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I should have no say in the matter, I'm not the victim. You're acting like this would just be a Lynch mob type thing that I'm advocating. Sometimes the evidence is irrefutable to the degree it is in this case, and the crime is so heinous, that allowing that man to live is in my opinion morally wrong.

You're free to have that opinion. I simply disagree.

 

[noknobs]

You're free to have that opinion. I simply disagree.

Thank you, and you're free to simply disregard the opinions of the actual victims in favor of your own. Enjoy.

 

[Phatguysrule]

This is bullshit.

There absolutely is benefit to a victim.

Knowing that person is no longer on earth and can't harm them anymore is a huge benefit.

Okay, I stand corrected.

There is no benefit to society that would offset the hundreds of innocent people we've allowed our judicial system to execute by allowing it to have this power.

I understand the loved ones feel great pain and anguish, and I sympathize with them.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Thank you, and you're free to simply disregard the opinions of the actual victims in favor of your own. Enjoy.

True statement.

 

[Phatguysrule]

How the fuck do you know?


I'm talking about instances like this. There's zero doubt here. Zero.

Unfortunately I don't believe our judicial system is capable of reliably making this distinction.

 

[noknobs]

Okay, I stand corrected.

There is no benefit to society that would offset the hundreds of innocent people we've allowed our judicial system to execute by allowing it to have this power.

Hi. We're talking about a school shooter who killed 17 people.

I understand the loved ones feel great pain and anguish, and I sympathize with them.

Well that's big of you, I'm sure it means a lot to them.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Hi. We're talking about a school shooter who killed 17 people.

Correct.

Well that's big of you, I'm sure it means a lot to them.

I doubt they care about my opinion.

Vengeance has no benefit to society. Making victims feel better is not worth the innocent lives that have been lost by allowing government that power.