Sadam's last minutes
-
PJ Arends wrote:
we already do it with our children.
No we don't. The few who do are in jail. Have you killed anybody?
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
No we don't.
Yes we do: http://www.statcan.ca/english/ads/91-209-XPE/highlights.htm[^] [quote] Induced abortions * The number of induced abortions performed annually on Canadian women has remained relatively stable for about a dozen years, averaging approximately 105,000. In 2003, about 54 % of these abortions were performed in hospitals and 46 % in Canadian clinics. * In Canada, about one abortion has been performed for every three births since the late 1990s. * One in two IA was performed on a woman in her twenties. The proportion of IA performed on adolescent girls aged between 15 and 19 years has declined slightly in Canada since 1999, going from 19,6 % to 17,0 % in 2003. [/quote] The rates are probably similiar across most of the western world.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
-
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
Yes. That's the only reason I support the death penalty. It's the only way to ensure that a vicious criminal never kills again. Someone who's in prison for life (with no chance of parole) has zero motivation to become a better person, in fact, quite the opposite since he's got nothing to lose.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
So, since you are capable of killing somebody, should we put you to death just in case? Sure you might not have no anything yet, but your blood lust for executions are certainly worrying. Should we kill people who are terminally ill? After all, they also have nothing to lose. What about homeless, down and outs, they don't have much to lose, why take the risk? The basis of our criminal justice system is that somebody is innocent until proven guilty. You want to turn it around to declare people guilty before a crime has even be committed. You can't justify the punishment for one crime based on future crimes that haven't happened yet. If you believe in the death penalty it has to be for the crimes that have been committed.
-
You need to consider two things: 1) No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century. 2) We are not in the 1940's anymore, sorry... What reaction did you expect?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
- No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century.
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
David Wulff wrote:
- No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century.
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
:sigh:
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
:sigh:
John Carson
Sigh all you'd like if it helps you sleep at night. I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death. Deal with it.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
Sigh all you'd like if it helps you sleep at night. I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death. Deal with it.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death.
:sigh: I'm not sure of your definition of "non-defensive military killing", but the basic distinction here is between people in custody and under the control of their captors and people who are not in custody and not under the control of their would-be captors.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death.
:sigh: I'm not sure of your definition of "non-defensive military killing", but the basic distinction here is between people in custody and under the control of their captors and people who are not in custody and not under the control of their would-be captors.
John Carson
-
I'll bet the victims in either case don't see the distinction.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'll bet the victims in either case don't see the distinction.
I suppose you could say the same of people struck by lightning. There is a moral distinction nevertheless.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'll bet the victims in either case don't see the distinction.
I suppose you could say the same of people struck by lightning. There is a moral distinction nevertheless.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I suppose you could say the same of people struck by lightning.
In both "non-lightening" cases one human (or group of humans) officially sanctioned the death of another human (or group of humans). It wasn't chance or bad luck or mother nature. It was 100% cause and effect.
John Carson wrote:
There is a moral distinction nevertheless.
IMO the distinction is small. I'd rather face the fact that humans are probably the cruelest animals ever evolved. It is our ability to moralize, rationalize and live in denial that makes us particularly deadly.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
I'm curious, where did WJousts state an opinion on the Nuremberg trials? Fabricating opinions- kinda shows your true colors:rolleyes:
-
David Wulff wrote:
- No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century.
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
I'm afraid I agree with John Carson, there really is no other reply to that stupidity other than a :sigh: However, as I have a feeling that you genuinely believe the tripe you spread, This will have to do:
Mike Mullikin wrote:
how is that technically different than an execution?
- Our troops are all volunteers. 2) Civillians killed by their actions are not bound with ropes, lined up and murdered. 3) Not even the combatants are treated like that.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk
