Welcome to Gaia! ::

black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Exoth XIII
black_wing_angel

Meh. Too much work, for no more reward than we get.

Uh huh. See, if fighting the death penalty is 'too much work,' then you support it. Your inaction allows it to exist.


Of course I support it.

Quote:
Quote:

And who are you? One person with no power. You have an opinion that nobody gives a s**t about.

I am me. My power is that of my will, which is indomitable. I don't care if nobody shares my opinion; let's see them stand against me.


Seeing as how you're against any form of homicide, and your opponents...well...aren't. I don't think THEY have anything to be afraid of, in standing against you.

Quote:
Incidentally, the death penalty is already abolished in my state, so apparently someone shares my beliefs.


That's the death penalty. Not all forms of justifiable homicide.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I accidentally hit someone with my car? My bad, and I pay for it.

Bad example. That was a mistake, in which you had no intent to even hurt the person.


That's exactly the point I was making. That's an example of "negligent" homicide, which is still punishable, even without ill intention.

I'm not sure where you were going with this. Yes, negligence resulting in death should be punished, but certainly not via death penalty. What does this have to do with anything?


I didn't say anything about the death penalty, to begin with. If you've actually paid attention to the conversation you've butted into, I am opposing the idea that homicide is NEVER ok. There are times when homicide is legal, and perfectly acceptable. My opponent misrepresented my stance as being that ALL homicide is acceptable. So I clarified myself by stating examples of both, acceptable and unacceptable homicide. Negligent homicide is an example of unacceptable homicide that is not murder.

Quote:
Quote:
And my possessions, which are more valuable to me, than the life of a complete scumbag.

And there ya lost me.


Would you be willing to part with something with deep sentimental value to you? Let's say a family heirloom from generations gone by? How about a keepsake from a family member or dear friend who has passed away?

I wouldn't. I'll will not hesitate to spill blood for my prized memories.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

And yes, I believe I have a civil duty to protect what is mine.

Yeah? You don't. Again, EVEN IF you genuinely feel your stuff is more valuable than a life, that's not duty, that's you protecting your stuff. It's self interest. At least be honest with yourself, duty never was a part of this.


Civil duty. What is expected from someone in a given situation. I have a civil duty to protect myself, and my belongings, just as I have a civil duty to respect the law.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

They'll still call you a war hero,

Debatable. Also, "they" are frequently wrong.


Still, the honors that "they" bestow upon people, are legally accepted accomplishments.

Quote:
Point is, there are situations where ending human lives is not a criminal act, and to most of us, not viewed as a reprehensible act.

Don't care. "Most of us" are wrong.


Because you said so, right? talk2hand
I AM R U's avatar

Savage Fairy

12,700 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
black_wing_angel
Wise Owl Eye
In Star Wars episode 3,
Anakin Skywalker is told by Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine to kill Count Dooku.
Count Dooku is unarmed and Anakin feels it would be wrong to execute him.
He kills Dooku and starts on the path to the dark side.

Is using the death penalty the path to the dark side?


Considering the fact that I've never been a big Star Wars fan, and only watched the "prequels" for the interests of a buddy of mine (he wanted to see 3 together, so I had to watch the other 2, so I wouldn't be completely lost), let me just say something....

You're an idiot. Anikan was already on that path of darkness, long before that execution scene. Remember in Episode 2, when he went nuts and murdered a whole bunch of people "...even the women...and children, too."? Yeah. Dooku was well past the off-ramp to dark-side. Just another pit-stop, along the way.


Not a fan of star wars, you say. Wrong, I think you are wink

Anyway, I'd agree - the "dark side" came a-calling long before he executed Dooku.

I still oppose the death penalty, but no, I don't see it as a path to evil. A path to moral ambiguity, but not evil per se.
Kadaverus's avatar

Original Vampire

9,400 Points
  • Flatterer 200
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Person of Interest 200
black_wing_angel

Quote:

Oh the law says its okay to kill?


In certain situations, yes.

Really, Id like to see where.

Quote:

Quote:
Human nature justifies killing another person?


In certain situations, yes.

Like when?

Quote:
Quote:
So if you were provoked its okay to kill someone then?


As long as the provocation was life threatening, yes.

If you pulled a knife or a gun on me, I'm well within my right (in most jurisdictions), to end your life, to protect my own.
Oh are you? so the first thing you do when someone pulls out a knife at you is you shoot them with intent to kill?
Thats cool, that doesn't sound like self defense though.

Quote:
Quote:
So how come the actions that happened at columbine were reprehensible?


Because they weren't under immediate threat to their lives. They were the provoking party, not the defensive party.

They?
Whos they, the columbine shooter was one person.

Quote:
Quote:
Clearly the shooter was provoked by life long torment from his peers.


But not with the threat to their lives. And there were 2 shooters in Columbine. Get your facts straight, if you want to challenge me.

Id say being bullied to point of suicide is a threat to someones self preservation of their own lives.
But youd go so far as to say, thats a justifiable means to kill someone, so by your logic, what the columbine shooter did was justified smile

Quote:
Quote:
Provocation justifies killing, you said so yourself, youd even shoot a home invader.


In certain situations, it does. You can't gun someone down, just because they pushed you. There has to be a clear cut threat to your life.

Yeah like in the columbine shooting!
I disagree though, I don't know why you're disagreeing with it because the Columbine Shooter was well within your logical fallacy to kill people.

Quote:
Quote:
I bet you must feel really proud of yourself killing all those insurgents without giving a second thought of their humanity,


I've never killed insurgents. But if I did...yeah. I'd feel pretty proud of myself for doing my country a service.
Thats nice at least we know you wont need extra conditioning

Quote:
Quote:
its so nice you've been conditioned to disregard human life to brag about killing other people.


I haven't been "conditioned" to disregard humanity. YOU'VE been conditioned to view it as unconditionally valuable. You're the kind of person who would let a rapist rape you, and do nothing about it, just so you don't have to live with having harmed them. I'd kill the b*****d, without a second thought. That's called survival instinct. Highly prized characteristic of nature.

Self preservation = killing other people?
My bad
I thought the highly prized characteristic of human nature was ALTRUISM, but hey what do I know, you're the kind of person who would shoot a home invader just because you value property more than a human life.
I mean if it was up to me, Id scare the person to an inch of his life and wait for the authorities to apprehend him but clearly you're more rational and just shoot the person without a second thought.
Italics for sarcasm.

Quote:
Quote:
And don't give me that hippy bullshit, my uncle was a war vet in nam, and killing VC killed him, he still lives with the nightmares of his friends dead and the guilt of killing other men who were doing what he was asked to do.


What a coincidence! MY uncle was also a 'Nam vet, who killed VCs. Didn't affect him, in the least, except gave him some stories to tell. Hell, he'd kill a VC, take their gun off their corpse, and sell it for profit, while he was there.

Your uncle just didn't have the mental gear for life or death combat.

Really he doesnt?
That's how you see it?
Wow you've really been conditioned to disregard human life havent you, cept for your own I mean.
Id say my uncle was more human than yours.

Quote:
Quote:
But yes, feel free to go around killing people.


If I have to, I will.

There you go again with the "If I have to"
You dont have to, you just want to.

Quote:
Quote:
If I werent a better man,


Which you're not, by any default
.
Oh but I am, as you will see.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd suggest the state excute you


I've done nothing to warrant it. Unless you're trying to convict me of thought crimes. You can not convict for crimes not committed.

No? Well if its for self preservation, like what you've been rambling on, you've been spewing pro killing propaganda like a sociopath, wouldn't you agree for the safety of the public its best youd be put down?
Personally I'd rather have you locked up where you can do no harm and get the rehabilitation you deserve but knowing you, youd probably see death as more merciful.

Quote:
Quote:
but hey I am a better man


No you're not. You're an overly empathetic, emotional person with a moral high-ground complex.

Yes I am a better man and I'm able to emotionally disconnect myself from debates, and not bring up dumb rhetorical scenarios like home invaders and shooting them on sight and without dispute my morals on preservation of human LIVES is way higher than your morals on self preservation at the cost of others.

Quote:
Quote:
and I respect no matter how stupid you are,


Awww...need some Preparation H for your butthurt, little bunny boy?

Awww did that hurt you?
Calling you dumb?

Quote:
Quote:
you're still a human being who deserves to live.


Yes. But only because I've done nothing to be revoked of that right to life. Many, many people do not share this fact.

But many people arent sociopaths unlike you smile
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,600 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Hero 100
Wise Owl Eye
In Star Wars episode 3,
Anakin Skywalker is told by Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine to kill Count Dooku.
Count Dooku is unarmed and Anakin feels it would be wrong to execute him.
He kills Dooku and starts on the path to the dark side.

Is using the death penalty the path to the dark side?

When in anger it is. Jedi are Lawful Good, and the law says that someone must stand trial before deciding upon a sentence (death included).

However, Palpatine requested immediate execution, and Anakin hesitated, knowing it was wrong. This is a bit strange since later on Mace Windu intends to kill Sidious, knowing he can manipulate the courts to get off scott free, and Anakin outright objects (though this is out of a belief that Sidious can help him save Padme).

This has little to do with the death penalty. This has more to do with the emotion and twisted Sith logic behind killing an enemy who should have stood a fair trial. But really, Sidious would have manipulated that too. Even so... Dooku knew who Palpatine truly was, and Palpatine could not risk the exposure when he was so close to his endgame.
Gardening_with_Rave_Music's avatar

Versatile Shapeshifter

11,000 Points
  • Big Tipper 100
  • Millionaire 200
  • Senpai's Notice 100
black_wing_angel
The Marvelous Joshua
I think we should bring back gladiator fights. That way we don't actually "kill anyone"


Killing someone who deserves to die. Maybe I'm some degree of sociopath, but I could live with it.
What makes someone deserving of death?
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Kadaverus
black_wing_angel

Quote:

Oh the law says its okay to kill?


In certain situations, yes.

Really, Id like to see where.


Castle Doctrine. Conceal Carry / Open Carry, for example.

They're not going to allow you to carry, open or concealed, a lethal weapon, if it weren't going to EVER be legal to use it. That's like buying a car you're never allowed to drive. There's no point in it.

Generally speaking, as long as you have the legal ground to possess the weapon used, and are in a life or death situation, there's absolutely no foul in using lethal force, in most jurisdictions.

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Human nature justifies killing another person?


In certain situations, yes.

Like when?


Like when it's you or them. Someone rushes you with a knife, you are generally allowed to neutralize the threat, upto and including lethal force. Whatever it takes to make them stop.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So if you were provoked its okay to kill someone then?


As long as the provocation was life threatening, yes.

If you pulled a knife or a gun on me, I'm well within my right (in most jurisdictions), to end your life, to protect my own.
Oh are you? so the first thing you do when someone pulls out a knife at you is you shoot them with intent to kill?
Thats cool, that doesn't sound like self defense though.


I shoot to "neutralize". Whether or not that requires them to stop breathing, is up to them and God.

Quote:
Quote:
So how come the actions that happened at columbine were reprehensible?


Because they weren't under immediate threat to their lives. They were the provoking party, not the defensive party.

They?
Whos they, the columbine shooter was one person.

Um...no. There were 2 shooters at Columbine. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly the shooter was provoked by life long torment from his peers.


But not with the threat to their lives. And there were 2 shooters in Columbine. Get your facts straight, if you want to challenge me.

Id say being bullied to point of suicide is a threat to someones self preservation of their own lives.


But not immediate. Immediate danger means here and now. That doesn't mean that someone can pull a gun on me, and I later hunt them down. I am only allowed to use lethal force, so long as they are CURRENTLY a threat to my life. This was never the case with the Dylan or Eric.

Quote:
But youd go so far as to say, thats a justifiable means to kill someone, so by your logic, what the columbine shooter did was justified smile


Nope. They were never in immediate life threatening danger. Their victims, however, were.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Provocation justifies killing, you said so yourself, youd even shoot a home invader.


In certain situations, it does. You can't gun someone down, just because they pushed you. There has to be a clear cut threat to your life.

Yeah like in the columbine shooting!


No. Not at all like the Columbine shooting. I'd recommend you actually LOOK INTO the event. Because based on what you've said this far, you clearly don't know s**t about it. Especially if you think there was only one shooter.

Quote:
I disagree though, I don't know why you're disagreeing with it because the Columbine Shooter was well within your logical fallacy to kill people.


Not at all. Quit trolling just because you can't defend your stance honestly.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I bet you must feel really proud of yourself killing all those insurgents without giving a second thought of their humanity,


I've never killed insurgents. But if I did...yeah. I'd feel pretty proud of myself for doing my country a service.
Thats nice at least we know you wont need extra conditioning


Never did. Human life is not especially valuable to me, by default. Only to those I actually care about.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
its so nice you've been conditioned to disregard human life to brag about killing other people.


I haven't been "conditioned" to disregard humanity. YOU'VE been conditioned to view it as unconditionally valuable. You're the kind of person who would let a rapist rape you, and do nothing about it, just so you don't have to live with having harmed them. I'd kill the b*****d, without a second thought. That's called survival instinct. Highly prized characteristic of nature.


Self preservation = killing other people?
My bad


In some situations, yes. If it's got to be them or you, you make sure it's them.

Quote:
I thought the highly prized characteristic of human nature was ALTRUISM, but hey what do I know, you're the kind of person who would shoot a home invader just because you value property more than a human life.


I value my property more than the life of scum who would dishonestly take it from me. They don't respect my rights. Why should I respect theirs?

You get what you give. You do me no harm, I'll do no you no harm. Cross me, and you will suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds, in accordance with the law.

Quote:
I mean if it was up to me, Id scare the person to an inch of his life and wait for the authorities to apprehend him


That's always an option, sure. And legally, if they run away, you have to let them. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. And never make an empty threat. If you're going to threaten the possibility of death, you damn well better be willing to carry through, should they call your bluff. Because if you pull a gun on someone, and they don't think you have it in you to pull the trigger, you're just pissing them off worse. You better be ready to take it to the next level, if necessary. I have no problem with that.

Quote:
but clearly you're more rational and just shoot the person without a second thought.
Italics for sarcasm.


I said I'd have no problem with it. That's not to say they don't have a chance. But we play by my rules. You do as you're told, you survive. You spend an indefinite amount of time in police custody, but you survive. Disobey my orders, and I can not guarantee your safety. You make your choices. I only enforce the consequences of those decisions.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And don't give me that hippy bullshit, my uncle was a war vet in nam, and killing VC killed him, he still lives with the nightmares of his friends dead and the guilt of killing other men who were doing what he was asked to do.


What a coincidence! MY uncle was also a 'Nam vet, who killed VCs. Didn't affect him, in the least, except gave him some stories to tell. Hell, he'd kill a VC, take their gun off their corpse, and sell it for profit, while he was there.

Your uncle just didn't have the mental gear for life or death combat.

Really he doesnt?
That's how you see it?


Obviously, if he was so "bothered" by it.

Either way, the point is that just because your uncle didn't have the mental ability to rationalize killing another human being, does not mean nobody could. As I said, my own uncle did the exact same thing. No issues, at all. Didn't even have a problem looting the enemy gun out of their dead hands, to sell for profit.

Quote:
Wow you've really been conditioned to disregard human life havent you, cept for your own I mean.


That's the natural order. You look at the animals in the wild. The ones who survive, are the ones who are not afraid to kill, when necessary. Even a rat will fight, when cornered.

Quote:
Id say my uncle was more human than yours.


Humanity is of no value to the dead.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But yes, feel free to go around killing people.


If I have to, I will.

There you go again with the "If I have to"
You dont have to, you just want to.


I do not want to. I hope I never do kill anyone. I don't ever want to be in that situation.

But if it were to come up, I will not hesitate. Being ready is not the same as being eager.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If I werent a better man,


Which you're not, by any default
.
Oh but I am, as you will see.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd suggest the state excute you


I've done nothing to warrant it. Unless you're trying to convict me of thought crimes. You can not convict for crimes not committed.

No? Well if its for self preservation, like what you've been rambling on, you've been spewing pro killing propaganda like a sociopath, wouldn't you agree for the safety of the public its best youd be put down?


No. Because I'm no threat to society in general. Just those who are a threat to me. Don't want me to kill you? Don't make me have to. As long as you mind your manners, I am no threat to you.

Quote:
Personally I'd rather have you locked up where you can do no harm and get the rehabilitation you deserve but knowing you, youd probably see death as more merciful.


Except there is nothing to rehabilitate. I will not harm an innocent person. I am no threat to anyone who is no threat to me.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
but hey I am a better man


No you're not. You're an overly empathetic, emotional person with a moral high-ground complex.

Yes I am a better man and I'm able to emotionally disconnect myself from debates, and not bring up dumb rhetorical scenarios like home invaders and shooting them on sight and without dispute my morals on preservation of human LIVES is way higher than your morals on self preservation at the cost of others.


Morals are subjective, I hope you realize.

I get your side of the coin. I do. But the fact is, people like you, are the people who get victimized. The ones who will never stand against a threat, because you value the life of even the lowest of criminal scum.

Me? Not the same story. I can only be victimized by someone better prepared than I am. And I will not go down begging. I'll go down fighting. And if the good lord grants my dying wish, I'll take them with me.

To die fighting, is better than to live begging.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and I respect no matter how stupid you are,


Awww...need some Preparation H for your butthurt, little bunny boy?

Awww did that hurt you?
Calling you dumb?


Not remotely. It takes a lot more than a cheap insult, especially one as empty as that, to get under my skin. But it's clear that I've gotten under yours.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
you're still a human being who deserves to live.


Yes. But only because I've done nothing to be revoked of that right to life. Many, many people do not share this fact.

But many people arent sociopaths unlike you smile


*shrug* I've been called worse things. And even if it were true that I was a sociopath (as if you actually knew how to gauge it), I'd rather be a sociopathic survivor, than an empathetic doormat. People won't ******** with me, twice. You'd just as well put a sign on your door that says "Take all you want. I will not harm you." I prefer the sign that says "This house protected by Smith and Wesson."
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
We Are Organisms
black_wing_angel
The Marvelous Joshua
I think we should bring back gladiator fights. That way we don't actually "kill anyone"


Killing someone who deserves to die. Maybe I'm some degree of sociopath, but I could live with it.
What makes someone deserving of death?


Those who don't respect others' rights to life, do not deserve to have their own respected.
killing an unarmed person,
trying an unarmed person,
kangaroo courts,
corrupt judges,
wanted dead or alive,
death penalty for crime,
death penalty for faux crime.

These are the principles that clash. Resolve them before wholesale conclusions.
Wise Owl Eye
In Star Wars episode 3,
Anakin Skywalker is told by Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine to kill Count Dooku.
Count Dooku is unarmed and Anakin feels it would be wrong to execute him.
He kills Dooku and starts on the path to the dark side.

Is using the death penalty the path to the dark side?


Nope. Going on an adventure with Liam Neeson and Natalie Portman is the path to the dark side. And I'm not joking about that. Basically, Anakin's biggest problem was that he was a font of raw Force potential - and he knew it. At the same time, Obi-Wan had doubts about his own ability to properly train a Jedi of such potential, which left Anakin miffed.

Turning to Palpatine for a "better" father-figure basically doomed him. Killing Dooku was only another step on a path that was already virtually inevitable.
Dieu des hommes's avatar

Enduring Prophet

black_wing_angel
Those who don't respect others' rights to life, do not deserve to have their own respected.
So we should execute executioners and judges? I'm game.
black_wing_angel
We Are Organisms
black_wing_angel
The Marvelous Joshua
I think we should bring back gladiator fights. That way we don't actually "kill anyone"


Killing someone who deserves to die. Maybe I'm some degree of sociopath, but I could live with it.
What makes someone deserving of death?


Those who don't respect others' rights to life, do not deserve to have their own respected.


Which includes the arbiters of such notions?
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

6,050 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
black_wing_angel
Exoth XIII

I am me. My power is that of my will, which is indomitable. I don't care if nobody shares my opinion; let's see them stand against me.


Seeing as how you're against any form of homicide, and your opponents...well...aren't. I don't think THEY have anything to be afraid of, in standing against you.

I don't need them to fear me. I need only to accomplish my goals.
Quote:

Quote:
Incidentally, the death penalty is already abolished in my state, so apparently someone shares my beliefs.


That's the death penalty. Not all forms of justifiable homicide.

In my state, it's legal to use lethal force if you believe your life, or that of another, is in danger, and you believe you can't escape.
Also, in my state, it's illegal to store guns in the same location as their ammunition, so lethal force is somewhat discouraged.

Quote:
Quote:

I'm not sure where you were going with this. Yes, negligence resulting in death should be punished, but certainly not via death penalty. What does this have to do with anything?

Negligent homicide is an example of unacceptable homicide that is not murder.

So's killing for vengeance. So's killing to protect your stuff, depending on who you ask.
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
And my possessions, which are more valuable to me, than the life of a complete scumbag.

And there ya lost me.


Would you be willing to part with something with deep sentimental value to you? Let's say a family heirloom from generations gone by? How about a keepsake from a family member or dear friend who has passed away?

I wouldn't. I'll will not hesitate to spill blood for my prized memories.

I'm strong enough, and clever enough, to solve the problem without killing. Leaving that out, if I REALLY, for whatever reason, had to make the choice between killing, and protecting some stuff, I'd let the stuff go.
If it has sentimental value, I keep it because it means something to me. Stealing the object doesn't rob me of the meaning. If the object means so much to me that I can't bear to lose it, I can place it in my memory palace, where I can always remember it.
Quote:

Civil duty. What is expected from someone in a given situation. I have a civil duty to protect myself, and my belongings, just as I have a civil duty to respect the law.

No, that's not what civil duty means. Civil duty is what society feels you owe to it. Respecting the law is a civil duty. Community service can come from a sense of civil duty. Shooting someone who's taking your stuff? Self interest. Not civil duty.

I think the only time I've heard "civil duty" used in a way similar to the way you're trying to use it, was in Disney's 'Pirates of the Caribbean.' The drunken blacksmith clunks Johnny Depp on the head, and when the captain praises him, he said "just doing my civil duty." He wasn't doing a civil duty, he was looking out for his own interests. He was feigning modesty, in an attempt to impress the captain, by saying he felt it was his duty to protect the people the pirate might have stolen from in the future.

You've made it quite clear that it's YOUR stuff you're protecting, so it's not a civil duty, it's self interest.
Quote:

Still, the honors that "they" bestow upon people, are legally accepted accomplishments.

Ethics based solely on popularity disgusts me.
Quote:

Because you said so, right? talk2hand

No, I have plenty of perfectly good reasons why the death penalty is wrong. Plenty of good reasons why it's wrong to deliberately take a life. Plenty of reasons why it's wrong to take lives through carelessness. I can't really think of a reason why it'd be wrong to take a life via unforeseeable accident, so I don't object to that.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Dieu des hommes
black_wing_angel
Those who don't respect others' rights to life, do not deserve to have their own respected.
So we should execute executioners and judges? I'm game.


They are guilty of no crime. They are only enforcing the legal statutes, as per their job.
black_wing_angel
Dieu des hommes
black_wing_angel
Those who don't respect others' rights to life, do not deserve to have their own respected.
So we should execute executioners and judges? I'm game.


They are guilty of no crime. They are only enforcing the legal statutes, as per their job.

Mm, but crime isn't deserving of death. Evil is.

Whose brains would you blow out first, Robin Hood's or the Sheriff of Nottingham's?
Dysia
killing an unarmed person,
trying an unarmed person,
kangaroo courts,
corrupt judges,
wanted dead or alive,
death penalty for crime,
death penalty for faux crime.

These are the principles that clash. Resolve them before wholesale conclusions.

Their order is a false order. No false order can survive true chaos. Create true chaos.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games