|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:58 am
Quote: Well then, everything is flawed. Choosing the pope is flawed, killing your cat 'saving' it from a tumar is flawed, deafness is flawed. There is no perfect anything, but that doesn't mean we can't act apon what we know. Sure, their might be a few mistakes, but that's life. We must account for human error. We account for human error in a court case by having appeals. Quote: Hence the "SOME" part in my statment. Also the "PROBABLE". I did not state that it was a certain fact that all came from the run-down parts, or they have no feeling. But most of them do. It's not very likely my sister or I will turn into homocidle maniacs, we were raised better then that, but we still have a chance, however small. You did not say probable you said: Quote: but more then likely, they came from a bad neighboor hood to begin with, and it's not much difference. Do you have any proof they are "more than likely" to come from a so-called bad neighbourhood? Quote: Yes, but people get use to those things. After a while, they'll just stop thinking about it. Then, they may just start likeing their life again. Order leads to chaos, but chaos cannot last forever. So, it's a cycle. They get depressed, then use to it, and then happy. Then they die. Get used to it?! So PoW's get used to captivity? The people in Guantanamo Bay get used to it? You might as well say we should not bother to lock anyone up for any crime because 'hey, they'll get used to it and be happy in there'. No one is happy in prison, have you ever spoken to someone who's been in prison? Quote: They are punished by their death. We no longer have to deal with them. Their crimes have no longer let them be human. You know what we do with animals that kill people repeatedly? We kill them. We kill them dead. With, like a rock or something... lika, lika stone... With a stone? *raises eyebrow* How very barbaric... Quote: So, insainity means they can act as they want and get a lesser punishment? No, it means they are not in full control of their own wits and might be cured. Not that all can be, not that they should not be let off. What about the people who said they were doing it for God or Allah? Quote: And if they committed suiced means they were guilty, in my opinion. An innocent man will always have hope some evidence will pull through, and will hope until his death. A guilty man want to get it over with, he doesn't want to wait. A couple of points here. 1) Just because they commit suicide does not mean they are guilty. It can mean they have lost all hope because there are people who want their blood and they don't think they can get an innocent verdict. They could easily be depressed by the whole thing, it especially happens with women accused of killing their babies. Prison is a horrible place to be, even more so if you know you did not do it. Harold Shipman was British, we don't kill people for crimes here, he still offed himself. Also, even smaller crimes can cause people to kill themselves in prison, it's called depression. 2) He (or she) doesn't want to wait? So why kill him at all? Let him stew in prison for life. Quote: And eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. A life for a life. OK, so...punishment should fit the crime? ((which is actually what it's saying, not that you should go around killing people for crimes but that the punishment should not be more severe than the crime deserves)) And you say... Quote: If I have a kid and they stole something, I'd take everything of theirs away, but not before beating them shitless. I believe in firm disiciplin, no one should be the 'cool' paranet, because in the end it does more harm then good. They stole something. So you go and take everything and beat them? Very fair. Hmmm, my dad's the 'cool' parent. The one who uses logic, fair judgement and fit punishment. My mother was the PMT'in b***h from hell who scream, cuss and lash out for what was very little. You know who gets my respect now I'm an adult? You know who's parenting ways I would use ((if I ever had kids which is a massive unlikelyness))? My dad's. Fair, civil, calm... I suggest you read The Orestia by Euripedes. I'll set out the basic story for you. Agamemnon goes on a 10 year war to Troy ((you know the story right?)) leaving behind his wife, Clytemnestra and his son and daughter, Orestes and Elektra. He takes one daughter with him Ifiginia but is forced to sacrifice her so that they can win the war. This obviously pisses Clyt off, but she also takes a new lover, Aegisthus, and sends Orestes away. Aegisthus and Clyt both plan to kill Agamemnon when he returns ((Clyt because he killed her daughter and Aegisthus because Agamemnons father killed his brothers)) Agamemnon returns, with a concubine, Cassandra. They both get killed by Clyt. Orestes is told of this at the Oracle of Delphi and is told he must avenge his father's death. So he returns and kills Clyt and Aegysthus. For this murder he is chased from his home by The Furies ((wicked avengers of murder, especially matricide)) and returns to Delphi for cleansing from Apollo. He then goes to Athens to be judged ((Athens, the home of democracy and the beginings of the judgement system which we still use today)). Athena summons a jury of the common people, impartial people. And court begins. The Furies argue Orestes should die because he killed. Apollo argues that there were reasons more complicated and that he has served punishment enough. It is finally decided that there must be an end to the cycle of vengence which has cursed the Atraedies house for generations and that Orestes has served his sentence ((by being hunted across Greece by the terrifying Furies)) The moral of this story is; judgement must be calm, impartial, take in all arguments, all twists, motives and circumstances and then give out just punishment. Vengence is not justice.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:36 pm
Mistress DragonFlame If I have a kid and they stole something, I'd take everything of theirs away, but not before beating them shitless. I believe in firm disiciplin, no one should be the 'cool' paranet, because in the end it does more harm then good.
The difference between him and my mother is the fact that I can talk to my mom. If I have guy issues I'll tell her about them, and she'll ask me advice about her boyfriend. She's pro-life just as I am, and so sometimes I'll read her some of my debates. This however doesn't make me undisciplined. Infact most of the people I know who have had parents that beat them, tend to be more into drinking, drugs and illegal activities.
In order to raise kids in any fashion, yes you need discipline but you also need a relationship. Beating them everytime they do something wrong will not form a relationship and kids don't tend to function well without some form of relationship from their parents.Quote: And they do it because the people they are killing have killed. The end.
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Quoth GhandiQuote: Of course it's more deaths that way! But, if you add up every victum(sp?) and weigh it against the goverment (by-passing war, because it's not a law to die or something) it equals about the same, maybe less for the gov. Quote: I remember a case somewhere in... Kansas? Utah? Oh well, I forget, it was years ago when I watched this, but there was this Chief Officer who stationed a gun at every gas station and 7-11 there was. A sign was posted, "if you try to rob this store, you will get shot" only tree times later, for the rest of that guys rein, not a single store was robbed--a period of 2-4 years?
aka, what's your point?Quote: The goverment is like a parent; they should be stricked as hell to keep us in line and raise us right. If they are the 'cool' parent, then they are doing more harm thena anything, and it will only get worse.
On a more serious note, as I've already said; in order for a parent to set rules to abide by, they must first abide by these same rules. If a parent tells their kid not to smoke, they shouldn't be smoking, if they tell them not to steal, they shouldn't be stealing, and if they tell them not to kill, they shouldn't be killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:31 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:53 pm
toxic_lollipop You don't have to beat your child to have firm discipline, and not beating your kid doesn't make you a 'cool' parent. I find my Dad very cool, I wouldn't want him to hang out with me at the mall, but I like playing board games and stuff with him when I'm home. He's more strict than my mother however, although he's never beat me before.
The difference between him and my mother is the fact that I can talk to my mom. If I have guy issues I'll tell her about them, and she'll ask me advice about her boyfriend. She's pro-life just as I am, and so sometimes I'll read her some of my debates. This however doesn't make me undisciplined. Infact most of the people I know who have had parents that beat them, tend to be more into drinking, drugs and illegal activities.
In order to raise kids in any fashion, yes you need discipline but you also need a relationship. Beating them everytime they do something wrong will not form a relationship and kids don't tend to function well without some form of relationship from their parents.Ah, but there are differences in punishment. My mother spanked me as a child, my father hit me with a wooden spoon. And, for the things they hit me for I stopped doing. You don't have to beat your kids for every single thing. It's better to be firm, and deal out swift and siver punishment in the begining of a childs life they will not disobey later on--sorta like training a puppy. Once I reached an age, like 6 or something, I stopped being hit. I enjoy my parents very much so, and believe they raised me properly, even though at the time I didn't think so. I was saying people who give their kids anything they want, and just say don't do stuff(without backing it up) don't deserve to have kids. Kinda like a person giving their opinion on abortion without backing it up--they aren't worth s**t.So I should be able to kill the people in your army then? At least the one's who have killed someone. As well as the executioners who kill the people that killed.
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Quoth GhandiArmy are not people. They are a tool. And army has no individuals, so no one can kill anyone. Sad, but true at least to me. And, before anyone says anything, my sisters boy-friend is in the navy, my brother in the Marines, I think, and my father was in some sort of water-baced army.
But, each person has two eyes. One eye gone they may not want to lose their last one. Also, I highly dislike and discredit anything Ghandi says or does because he was a ******** wife beater, and supported that. Damn b*****d.Why by-pass war? Because those are justified killings? People who murder usually feel justified in doing so. Besides, what makes a mass murderer any worse than your regular murderer? They've both killed, one has killed more, but when it comes to life I think every life is just as important. I don't consider someone who has killed 3 people any better than someone who has killed 10. Why would I consider the government any better simply because it's killed less than all the murderers who have been executed, combined?Yes, by pass war because it's a tool and those deaths were nessassary. A country can have a war with no deaths, but if they did they'd loose. Ever heard, "All's fair in love and war"?
And it's like the Kerry vs. Bush. The lesser of the two evils. Choose your fate. mad I remember this one country who still had the death penalty. It's murder rate was much higher than the rate of that of it's neighbor who had no death penalty.
aka, what's your point?My point is violence leads to more violence, but if it's severe enough, the instigators will lose their taste for it and will stop.I'll keep this in mind. If one of my kids ever kills anyone I'll be sure to give them the shooting of their life.
On a more serious note, as I've already said; in order for a parent to set rules to abide by, they must first abide by these same rules. If a parent tells their kid not to smoke, they shouldn't be smoking, if they tell them not to steal, they shouldn't be stealing, and if they tell them not to kill, they shouldn't be killing. If my kid killed someone, I'd allow them to be killed, no remorce for it. Sure, I don't wish for my child to die, but they forfieted their rights when they pulled the trigger (if they shot someone). So then, if the child smokes, steals, kills, the parent has that right as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 9:59 am
Gr, I responded to this but Gaia ate it. I'll type it up again in a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:55 pm
toxic_lollipop Gr, I responded to this but Gaia ate it. I'll type it up again in a bit. I know, I hate it when that happens. Get Firefox, it doesn't allow that. It's very cool about that, but it always adds the bold, emoticons and such at the bottom of a page. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:11 am
I was actually using Firefox at the time. I was just working on my sisters website while I was posting, and I spent too much time there and it logged me out. Which I didn't find out until after I attempted to post.Quote: Ah, but there are differences in punishment. My mother spanked me as a child, my father hit me with a wooden spoon. And, for the things they hit me for I stopped doing. You don't have to beat your kids for every single thing. It's better to be firm, and deal out swift and siver punishment in the begining of a childs life they will not disobey later on--sorta like training a puppy. Once I reached an age, like 6 or something, I stopped being hit. I enjoy my parents very much so, and believe they raised me properly, even though at the time I didn't think so. I was saying people who give their kids anything they want, and just say don't do stuff(without backing it up) don't deserve to have kids. Kinda like a person giving their opinion on abortion without backing it up--they aren't worth s**t. Quote: If I have a kid and they stole something, I'd take everything of theirs away, but not before beating them shitless.
Once you set a specific rule, you yourself must abide by it before expecting it of anyone else. If you yourself do not abide by said rule than there is no reason for you to expect anyone else to abide by it either.Quote: Army are not people. They are a tool. And army has no individuals, so no one can kill anyone. Sad, but true at least to me. And, before anyone says anything, my sisters boy-friend is in the navy, my brother in the Marines, I think, and my father was in some sort of water-baced army. But, each person has two eyes. One eye gone they may not want to lose their last one. Also, I highly dislike and discredit anything Ghandi says or does because he was a ******** wife beater, and supported that. Damn b*****d.
And the point of this quote is to represent how pointless revenge is. The representation being if you believe in "An eye for an eye." than you yourself must lose an eye. I'll try and explain this in mathmatical terms.
Your way of thinking is;
EYE - EYE = 0
Therefore 0 = Clean slate.
How it actually is;
(2World populationEYE) - EYE = (2World populationEYE - EYE)
Which would then translate into;
(2World populationEYE - EYE) - EYE = (2World populationEYE - 2EYE)
You see by subtrating one EYE from 2world populationEYE you are left with 2world populationEYE negative one EYE. In order for you to get zero or "Clean slate" you must then go through the entire world population, until there is no longer any EYE.
As you have pointed out, people have two eyes. However as we can see in this equation it doesn't matter as the amount needed to get to 0 still equal on both sides. The amount needed is 2World populationEYE
So;
2World populationEYE - 2World populationEYE = 0
Because in order to equal "Clean slate" the entire worlds population must become blind Ghandi's quote; "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." is therefore true.
Therefore, in terms of life;
(World populationLIFE) - LIFE = (World populationLIFE - LIFE)
Once again we see that there is a negative LIFE, which means that once again we must go through the world population. Since each person only has one life the world population doesn't require being multiplied by two. Quote: Yes, by pass war because it's a tool and those deaths were nessassary. A country can have a war with no deaths, but if they did they'd loose. Ever heard, "All's fair in love and war"? And it's like the Kerry vs. Bush. The lesser of the two evils. Choose your fate. Quote: My point is violence leads to more violence, but if it's severe enough, the instigators will lose their taste for it and will stop. Quote: If my kid killed someone, I'd allow them to be killed, no remorce for it. Sure, I don't wish for my child to die, but they forfieted their rights when they pulled the trigger (if they shot someone). So then, if the child smokes, steals, kills, the parent has that right as well.
You see what would be the point of rules if there was no punishment? And what would be the point of punishment if there were no rules? The two must coincide, which means that in order to deal out a punishment for breaking a certain rule you yourself must abide by that rule, otherwise there is no such rule and cannot therefore be punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:36 pm
toxic_lollipop I was actually using Firefox at the time. I was just working on my sisters website while I was posting, and I spent too much time there and it logged me out. Which I didn't find out until after I attempted to post.Quote: Ah, but there are differences in punishment. My mother spanked me as a child, my father hit me with a wooden spoon. And, for the things they hit me for I stopped doing. You don't have to beat your kids for every single thing. It's better to be firm, and deal out swift and siver punishment in the begining of a childs life they will not disobey later on--sorta like training a puppy. Once I reached an age, like 6 or something, I stopped being hit. I enjoy my parents very much so, and believe they raised me properly, even though at the time I didn't think so. I was saying people who give their kids anything they want, and just say don't do stuff(without backing it up) don't deserve to have kids. Kinda like a person giving their opinion on abortion without backing it up--they aren't worth s**t. Quote: If I have a kid and they stole something, I'd take everything of theirs away, but not before beating them shitless.
Once you set a specific rule, you yourself must abide by it before expecting it of anyone else. If you yourself do not abide by said rule than there is no reason for you to expect anyone else to abide by it either.Beat: to hit. Spank: to hit. Same meaning, but different word. I'd sure as hell beat them shitless because I, again, and training them for later in on life. When done something when you may, or may not have known it was correct is something completely different when they do it as adult. If they assosiate pain, not "booboo" pain either but pain, with stealing, they won't do it.
Besides, the goverment is not a person. It is not alive, it is... there. o.O And since it is not human, it does not have to abide by laws set for humans, such as killing and collecting money from people when the person did nothing but work to get that debt. When it applies to a persons rights, which they supply, they have set boundries. BUT, when that person breaks one of their laws, they can take away those rights. Quote: Army are not people. They are a tool. And army has no individuals, so no one can kill anyone. Sad, but true at least to me. And, before anyone says anything, my sisters boy-friend is in the navy, my brother in the Marines, I think, and my father was in some sort of water-baced army. But, each person has two eyes. One eye gone they may not want to lose their last one. Also, I highly dislike and discredit anything Ghandi says or does because he was a ******** wife beater, and supported that. Damn b*****d.
And the point of this quote is to represent how pointless revenge is. The representation being if you believe in "An eye for an eye." than you yourself must lose an eye. I'll try and explain this in mathmatical terms.
Your way of thinking is;
EYE - EYE = 0
Therefore 0 = Clean slate.
How it actually is;
(2World populationEYE) - EYE = (2World populationEYE - EYE)
Which would then translate into;
(2World populationEYE - EYE) - EYE = (2World populationEYE - 2EYE)
You see by subtrating one EYE from 2world populationEYE you are left with 2world populationEYE negative one EYE. In order for you to get zero or "Clean slate" you must then go through the entire world population, until there is no longer any EYE.
As you have pointed out, people have two eyes. However as we can see in this equation it doesn't matter as the amount needed to get to 0 still equal on both sides. The amount needed is 2World populationEYE
So;
2World populationEYE - 2World populationEYE = 0
Because in order to equal "Clean slate" the entire worlds population must become blind Ghandi's quote; "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." is therefore true.
Therefore, in terms of life;
(World populationLIFE) - LIFE = (World populationLIFE - LIFE)
Once again we see that there is a negative LIFE, which means that once again we must go through the world population. Since each person only has one life the world population doesn't require being multiplied by two. If the one person who commited the origial offence, (-eye) then the person who was the victim (-eye) can go to the gov./laws for defence (+2eye) So,
-eye -eye +2eye(goverment)= clean slate. Quote: Yes, by pass war because it's a tool and those deaths were nessassary. A country can have a war with no deaths, but if they did they'd loose. Ever heard, "All's fair in love and war"? And it's like the Kerry vs. Bush. The lesser of the two evils. Choose your fate. Quote: My point is violence leads to more violence, but if it's severe enough, the instigators will lose their taste for it and will stop.
The U.S.A was also forged differently. Civil war, war of indepencance, war with mexico, stealing land from inians, our past is pretty violent, and that means our present will be violent. Also, since we had slavery late on, and many different races all mingled together, it creates fricition and friction = violence. Different area, different states. Quote: If my kid killed someone, I'd allow them to be killed, no remorce for it. Sure, I don't wish for my child to die, but they forfieted their rights when they pulled the trigger (if they shot someone). So then, if the child smokes, steals, kills, the parent has that right as well.
You see what would be the point of rules if there was no punishment? And what would be the point of punishment if there were no rules? The two must coincide, which means that in order to deal out a punishment for breaking a certain rule you yourself must abide by that rule, otherwise there is no such rule and cannot therefore be punishment.
And yes, they can punish the child. But, the child, if they smoke or such, has not violated someone elses rights forever. They did not steal someones breath. Anything they did, they can repay. If they have killed someone in cold blood, in the most cruelist fasion, they must repay with their own death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:22 pm
Quote: Yes. Just go down to your local prison and ask anyone in there You do realize that there are different security levels for prisons right? You have been reading the articles I've been posting right? Quote: And yes, he did say he got use to it after a while. He still hated it, but he knew he was going to get out someday, and that thought kept him going. If you knew for a fact you wouldn't get out, you would just give up and settle in. It's human nature to adapt to their surrondings. May not be good surrondings, but they get use to it. Sure, humans adapt to their surroundings, they don't just suddenly forget what it was like to be free. There are appeals and re-trials for all sorts of cases, from traffic tickets to serial rape, prison is bad, whether you find a way to put up with it or not; hence the ammount of suicides and depressives in prison (not just on death row). And the fact of the matter is; they ahve lost all personal freedoms, that is what it boils down to. So answer me this. Is it ok to leave PoW's festering in camps because "they'll get used to it" if it will be troublesome to get them out? And by your idea that once they get out they will nto commit the crimes again because they realize how terrible it is on the inside we should free murderers after so many years. They'll never do it again, the government does nto ahve to take a life, and you know for a fact you will not be killing any innocents. Quote: What if I killed someone in the name of bob? Was I not in the full control of my self? They knew what they were doing, and deserve the worst. Maybe you were (and are lying), maybe you did hear a person called Bob telling you to kill people, much the same as David Berkovitz, the Son of Sam, who claimed his neighbours dog told him to kill (or his father Sam). He is spending his life in prison, diminished responsibility. He isworking as a Chaiplans clerk. Why do they deserve the worst? how do you know they knew what they were doing? How do you know that they knew what they were doing was wrong? Ever hear of the Jammie Buldger murder? A toddler was taken from a shopping centre by two pre-teen boys. He was brutally tortured and murdered. Would you have had the boys executed? Quote: But, if they are innocent, again in my opinon, there is always that hope they will get the pardon, that some evidence will pull through. They would cling to that idea, that hope, and live. Your opinion is misguided and wrong. What hope do they have of pardon if they don't have appeals, if they cannot prove their innocence? And what of the suicides of people who will only be in prison for a few years? Female Suicides in 2003 in Britani"Several of the 14 who died were young women, non violent, drug takers and primary carers of children and vulnerable to suicide." Prison suicide record condemned"a 14-year-old boy took his own life in a secure training centre" (as a side note too for your idea that prison is so dandy) ""Far too many people find prison intolerable and are dying as a direct consequence of our love affair with punishment and incarceration." Increase in prison suicides blamed on overcrowding"A worrying trend is that the suicide rate is rising faster than the prison population." so on and so forth... Quote: While he or she is getting a free ride. As soon as I don't have to pay for their food, clothing, guards, I will consider thinking the death penalty is wrong. Maybe. So why not kill all prisoners? You have to pay for their care ((though some prisons are actually subsidized by products the inmates make/grow themselves)). Quote: Like wearing cloths. You can't fit in smaller ones, but you can wear bigger ones-but not too much so. A 4ft 70lb person can't wear a 6ft 300lb person's shirt, because it's too big for the purpose it was created for. So don't over-punish by beating your children to the point of death ((I hope for your childrens' sake you never spawn)). Besides, I'm 5'8" and where T-shirts made for 10 yr old boys ((I like comic book superheroes)). Quote: What I see is that Orestes was the goverment. He had been wronged, (the tax payers killed, in gov.'s case) and the orical, (law) said for him to kill, which he did. That story said to not kill freely and take in all aspects of the circumstances. The wife and lover deserved to be killed because they killed for no genuine purpose, the wife should have asked the law to ban/sacrifice her husband or something, and the lover should have asked retrubotion from the law about the husbands father, not the husband. The husband, for sacrificing his daughter, deserved to be sacrificed for a good cause, such as stopping a 10 year war. The lover didn't do anything. Then the government should be punished for killing, is what you appear to be saying. You seem to have missed the bit where Orestes suffers for his crimes, without dying. Orestes was punished, there are other stories about his travels ((between Argos, Delphi and Athens)) and his torment by the Furies. I neglected to mention that the Furies became the Eumenides (the Kindly Ones) at the end of the play. They had learnt that justice was not vengence ((all the scholars agree that this is what the story is about)) and became bringers of rightful justice, not murderers themselves. Quote: Ah, but there are differences in punishment. My mother spanked me as a child, my father hit me with a wooden spoon. And, for the things they hit me for I stopped doing. You don't have to beat your kids for every single thing. It's better to be firm, and deal out swift and siver punishment in the begining of a childs life they will not disobey later on--sorta like training a puppy. Once I reached an age, like 6 or something, I stopped being hit. I enjoy my parents very much so, and believe they raised me properly, even though at the time I didn't think so. I was saying people who give their kids anything they want, and just say don't do stuff(without backing it up) don't deserve to have kids. Kinda like a person giving their opinion on abortion without backing it up--they aren't worth s**t. 1) don't beat puppies. 2) There is a difference between spanking and beating. 3) There is a middle ground between not punishing and physical abuse ((which is basicly what this whole argument is about)). Being told why something is wrong, showing why and explain the hurt it has done along with a punishment such as no pocket money, grounding, no sweets, no computer games, whichever would ahve the most effect, is an excellent way to teach children right from wrong. 4) don't beat babies Quote: But, each person has two eyes. One eye gone they may not want to lose their last one. What he was referring to was the fact that if you took out my eye, and I took out your eye for you taking out my eye, then I would turn around and take your eye for taking out my other eye. See? ((pun totally intended)) Quote: A country can have a war with no deaths, but if they did they'd loose So who lost The Cold War? Quote: Ever heard, "All's fair in love and war" So you don't mind someone stealing your partner, or adultery? Cos 'all's fair in love and war'... Quote: My point is violence leads to more violence, but if it's severe enough, the instigators will lose their taste for it and will stop. Tell that to the insurgents in Iraq... Quote: Beat: to hit. Spank: to hit. Didn't get out your dandy little dictionary for that one did you? Beat; hit repeatedly. Spank; to smack lightly, usually as a form of punisment to a child or as foreplay in a sexual relationship. Quote: The U.S.A was also forged differently. Civil war, war of indepencance, war with mexico, stealing land from inians, our past is pretty violent, and that means our present will be violent. So it's ok for a person who was abused as a child to abuse children once they are adults, let them off... You just let a small majority of criminals out of prison... You never here of the war of 1812? Well it was one America lost so I guess they don't teach you about it ((British troops, allied to Canada, marched into Washington, set fire tot he whitehouse...when it was still sandstone coloured...and marched abck out again...then it was painted white to cover the scorch marks)). It was fought mostly between America and Canada. British and French histories are incredibly violent, and go back further. We have both had wars of revolution, several times over, wars with other countries ((can you say World War 1 and 2...fought on French soil...)) invasions galore...and hey, we've had to put with the IRA for decades ((3 bomb scares in my school in the space of 3 years)). Quote: Also, since we had slavery late on, and many different races all mingled together, it creates fricition and friction = violence. Different area, different states. So did Britain, and Australia saw slavery right up until the 1900's and onwards. Different races? Britain is one big melting pot of races. America isn't the only multi-cultural country in the world. Quote: Well, not very good exaples if the kid does it first, now are they? And yes, they can punish the child. But, the child, if they smoke or such, has not violated someone elses rights forever. They did not steal someones breath. Anything they did, they can repay. If they have killed someone in cold blood, in the most cruelist fasion, they must repay with their own death. Clearly if you have to beat your children you have not set a good example yourself... *sigh* And if I'm not mistaken passive smoking aids lung disease, asthma etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:39 pm
Gay Rights- Liking someone with the same kind of genitals doesn't make you less of a citizen or deserving of less rights- as one person said, "I live here. I pay taxes here. I want to get married." It doesn't make them any less competent than someone who likes the opposite sex. Also, people who think it's going to bring the downfall of humanity... ******** off and find a real problem. (Reminds me of a time when some guy came up to my dad while he was going to work and the guy was bitchin' to him about how Halloween was Satanic and should be stopped... and my dad told him he had an autistic son, and if the guy had one, then the guy would know what a real problem is. xd )
And in all honesty... I just don't see why gays shouldn't. I mean, I don't get it, like how I don't get religions and the whole thing with guys and big breasts and... cellphones. They confuse me.
President Bush- I shoot pictures of him with my brother's BBgun. 'Nuff said. (Note- I would never actually shoot him. Well, maybe in the foot. But not the die!!!!1 kind of shot.)
Sex before Marriage- Marriage is a legal contract, all the other stings attached to it are other people's own business and it is not my place to tell them when they are ready to or should have sex.
Death penalty- Undecided. On one hand, there are some really sick bastards out there who would really be better off just not existing. On the other hand, most of those people haven't murdered anyone. Oh, and an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but then again, it's pretty bad when one guy goes and stabs out the eyes of almost everyone and no one does anything about it other than "Stay here. You're never leavin'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:42 pm
Quote: And yes, they can punish the child. But, the child, if they smoke or such, has not violated someone elses rights forever. They did not steal someones breath. Anything they did, they can repay. If they have killed someone in cold blood, in the most cruelist fasion, they must repay with their own death. Haven't you ever heard of second hand smoke? We watched this video in class called "Dieing for a Smoke" and one woman had to get a larengectimy (is that how you spell it?) a hole in her throat so she could breath, because one of her relatives smoked, she had never smoked in her life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:09 pm
Pandali Quote: And yes, they can punish the child. But, the child, if they smoke or such, has not violated someone elses rights forever. They did not steal someones breath. Anything they did, they can repay. If they have killed someone in cold blood, in the most cruelist fasion, they must repay with their own death. Haven't you ever heard of second hand smoke? We watched this video in class called "Dieing for a Smoke" and one woman had to get a larengectimy (is that how you spell it?) a hole in her throat so she could breath, because one of her relatives smoked, she had never smoked in her life.
Er... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:47 pm
sybex Shark Pandali Quote: And yes, they can punish the child. But, the child, if they smoke or such, has not violated someone elses rights forever. They did not steal someones breath. Anything they did, they can repay. If they have killed someone in cold blood, in the most cruelist fasion, they must repay with their own death. Haven't you ever heard of second hand smoke? We watched this video in class called "Dieing for a Smoke" and one woman had to get a larengectimy (is that how you spell it?) a hole in her throat so she could breath, because one of her relatives smoked, she had never smoked in her life.
Er... sweatdrop Yes. I almost put that too, then I didn't. I don't know why. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:13 pm
Shard Aerliss You do realize that there are different security levels for prisons right? You have been reading the articles I've been posting right? Yes, but even then you can still go to your nearest prison and ask. And yes, I have.Sure, humans adapt to their surroundings, they don't just suddenly forget what it was like to be free. There are appeals and re-trials for all sorts of cases, from traffic tickets to serial rape, prison is bad, whether you find a way to put up with it or not; hence the ammount of suicides and depressives in prison (not just on death row). And the fact of the matter is; they ahve lost all personal freedoms, that is what it boils down to. So answer me this. Is it ok to leave PoW's festering in camps because "they'll get used to it" if it will be troublesome to get them out? (I have no idea what PoW is, so I'll guess) Well, they didn't do anything, right? And if they did, it wasn't bad enough to warrent that when they should have better rights.And by your idea that once they get out they will nto commit the crimes again because they realize how terrible it is on the inside we should free murderers after so many years. They'll never do it again, the government does nto ahve to take a life, and you know for a fact you will not be killing any innocents. But, forever more, people around them will worry. And, some times, they do go back to that way of life. Not all the times, but sometimes. Normally the really sick minded that didn't commit that bad of a crime at first.Maybe you were (and are lying), maybe you did hear a person called Bob telling you to kill people, much the same as David Berkovitz, the Son of Sam, who claimed his neighbours dog told him to kill (or his father Sam). He is spending his life in prison, diminished responsibility. He isworking as a Chaiplans clerk. Why do they deserve the worst? how do you know they knew what they were doing? How do you know that they knew what they were doing was wrong? Ever hear of the Jammie Buldger murder? A toddler was taken from a shopping centre by two pre-teen boys. He was brutally tortured and murdered. Would you have had the boys executed? I still had the power over my body. If they were really against that, they could have left those people/things.
And yes, those boys deserved to die. Age is of no importance to this.Your opinion is misguided and wrong. What hope do they have of pardon if they don't have appeals, if they cannot prove their innocence? And what of the suicides of people who will only be in prison for a few years? My opinion is my opinion, no one else can judge it because it doesn't fit what they believe. And suicides? Some people do not think of the future, and only think of the current way out. Female Suicides in 2003 in Britani"Several of the 14 who died were young women, non violent, drug takers and primary carers of children and vulnerable to suicide." 14? That's it? They probably were having withdrawls and couldn't take it and as for the children, some people aren't that good of a parent.Prison suicide record condemned"a 14-year-old boy took his own life in a secure training centre" (as a side note too for your idea that prison is so dandy) And teenagers kill themselves all the time because they can't handle their school life. However bad school is, prision is worse, but not what some people deserve.""Far too many people find prison intolerable and are dying as a direct consequence of our love affair with punishment and incarceration." Increase in prison suicides blamed on overcrowding"A worrying trend is that the suicide rate is rising faster than the prison population." So why don't we kill some people off and lessen the crowding?so on and so forth... So why not kill all prisoners? You have to pay for their care ((though some prisons are actually subsidized by products the inmates make/grow themselves)). I think all prisons should be self-sufficiant, so that there is no tax drain on them, besides the building of it, of course. Besides, if we killed them all, then even the small fish will be caught, the ones who bearly fit into there. THAT is abuseing your power.So don't over-punish by beating your children to the point of death ((I hope for your childrens' sake you never spawn)). Besides, I'm 5'8" and where T-shirts made for 10 yr old boys ((I like comic book superheroes)). ...I never said to the point of near death. I said, "beat them shitless" meaning I'd really, really get all pissed, and lay it into them. Not just a few slaps on the wrists. Sorry if you interperted it wrong, or it came off that way. Also, I hope I never spawn either; I hate children with a passion, and would never be able to stand a baby-teenager.
...How the hell can you fit into that. o.O?Then the government should be punished for killing, is what you appear to be saying. You seem to have missed the bit where Orestes suffers for his crimes, without dying. Orestes was punished, there are other stories about his travels ((between Argos, Delphi and Athens)) and his torment by the Furies. No, he had no choice the orical (law) said for him to, and he had to obey. He was used as a tool, and should not suffer from it. I do not thing that the Furies should have done that; he had done nothing wrong.I neglected to mention that the Furies became the Eumenides (the Kindly Ones) at the end of the play. They had learnt that justice was not vengence ((all the scholars agree that this is what the story is about)) and became bringers of rightful justice, not murderers themselves. ...Ok?1) don't beat puppies. You smack puppies if they bite, or s**t on the carpet though.2) There is a difference between spanking and beating. Beating-to hit, spanking-to hit. Same thing, I just like the word beating better. Maybe because I "wallow in my self morbidness", as my palm said when I had it read once.3) There is a middle ground between not punishing and physical abuse ((which is basicly what this whole argument is about)). Being told why something is wrong, showing why and explain the hurt it has done along with a punishment such as no pocket money, grounding, no sweets, no computer games, whichever would ahve the most effect, is an excellent way to teach children right from wrong. I think those punishments are worth crap. You know what I do now when my mother takes away my internet? I plan. I plan many things. I plan what to do to secretly get back at her, I plan on when I'll move out to get rid of that s**t, I plan on what to wear tomorrow. It's not really a punishment, even though my most prized possession, my laptop, is gone. I have other things to do. And I don't normally have poket money--my mother doesn't give me any.4) don't beat babies I hate children, and if they do something wrong, while complrehending what they are doing (not just crawling around and grabbing at stuff; then you just put them in a cornor bin thing, no toys, and ignor them for an hour or two, that their instinks understand)What he was referring to was the fact that if you took out my eye, and I took out your eye for you taking out my eye, then I would turn around and take your eye for taking out my other eye. See? ((pun totally intended)) That didn't make sence. I only took out one of your eyes, and then you take out both of mine? While somehow losing your last one?So who lost The Cold War? It wasn't a war, it was a standoff. War, is when you go and shoot/bomb/attack other people in the open and declare it.So you don't mind someone stealing your partner, or adultery? Cos 'all's fair in love and war'... Well, if the other person loved me, and not them, then yes, because I can get them back and stop their attemps because I love the said person as well.Tell that to the insurgents in Iraq... We are not violent enough. Yes, I know what we are doing (as I said, my brother is over there) but I think we should have just swarmed the entire country as soon as we could. Every single millitary personel, reserve, drafting, anything. We should have completely distoried them then and there. But we didn't, and now, 4 years later, it's still going on (if only aftermaths.)Didn't get out your dandy little dictionary for that one did you? Beat; hit repeatedly. Spank; to smack lightly, usually as a form of punisment to a child or as foreplay in a sexual relationship. hit: To come into contact with forcefully; strike Smack: A sharp blow or slap with a sound. Ok, so spaking makes a sound. But, the basic meaning is the same-to hit, cause pain.So it's ok for a person who was abused as a child to abuse children once they are adults, let them off... You just let a small majority of criminals out of prison... We are not dealing with a person, but a culture. We do not condem our culture, do we?You never here of the war of 1812? Well it was one America lost so I guess they don't teach you about it ((British troops, allied to Canada, marched into Washington, set fire tot he whitehouse...when it was still sandstone coloured...and marched abck out again...then it was painted white to cover the scorch marks)). It was fought mostly between America and Canada. British and French histories are incredibly violent, and go back further. We have both had wars of revolution, several times over, wars with other countries ((can you say World War 1 and 2...fought on French soil...)) invasions galore...and hey, we've had to put with the IRA for decades ((3 bomb scares in my school in the space of 3 years)). No, sorry, but I am still in basic world history, currently on WW1, so I haven't learned all of America's history, but still, I know more then over 1/2 my class about history. Dumb bastards. Anyway,
Those historys were so violent, and prolong, they lost their taste for it. I bet, within the next 300 years, they will become way violent again. America sucks, a bad history, but not bad enough to clean our present. (And I've had gang fights with guns to worry about. Idiots with ammunition is never a good thing)So did Britain, and Australia saw slavery right up until the 1900's and onwards. Different races? Britain is one big melting pot of races. America isn't the only multi-cultural country in the world. Do they live right next to, connected to, a non-white culture? No. They are surronded by france, Swetzerlen-like contires, Germany and water. Yay?Clearly if you have to beat your children you have not set a good example yourself... *sigh* And if I'm not mistaken passive smoking aids lung disease, asthma etc... No, I've been stricked with my child. If they don't do wrong, they live the good life--free food, free internet, free bed and board, free education, free clothing, free intertainment, all that Jazz. If that was enough to dondemn smoking, why isn't it illegal Besides the fact the tabbacco companies won't allow it .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:09 am
Mistress DragonFlame Sure, humans adapt to their surroundings, they don't just suddenly forget what it was like to be free. There are appeals and re-trials for all sorts of cases, from traffic tickets to serial rape, prison is bad, whether you find a way to put up with it or not; hence the ammount of suicides and depressives in prison (not just on death row). And the fact of the matter is; they ahve lost all personal freedoms, that is what it boils down to. So answer me this. Is it ok to leave PoW's festering in camps because "they'll get used to it" if it will be troublesome to get them out? (I have no idea what PoW is, so I'll guess) Well, they didn't do anything, right? And if they did, it wasn't bad enough to warrent that when they should have better rights.PoWs are Prisoners of War, so it depends on your opinion of soldiers, war, and killing for your country as to whether they deserved it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
