1. Post #121
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    19,250 Posts
    How about situations where the prisoner has expressed the will to die ? Something which has happened in the past ?

    Also, bringing up the slippery slope fallacy is idiotic. I'm referring to a specific criteria and you're jumping the gun instantly.
    It's not really a slippery slope. It's how every law against something has been exploited by someone in the past. Tax laws are full of weird little exceptions; and wouldn't you know it, people who shouldn't be able to use them can work around the law using said exceptions. It's all a matter of how you define things, and nobody seems capable of defining something to the degree needed to be legally bulletproof.

    Though if an inmate does express a genuine will to die rather than serve their sentence. Whatever. Euthanasia isn't the death penalty, it's a consenting ending of your life. Not a forceful ending via a state entity (god that sentence sounded too close to libertarian rhetoric for my liking). After some therapy and counselling to ensure it's a genuine desire and not just mental health problems, I see no issue with euthanasia.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United Kingdom Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  2. Post #122
    NoOneKnowsMe's Avatar
    June 2011
    356 Posts
    Dealing in absolutes is hardly ever going to work out for you and death penalty is no different. I think a lot of people who have argued against the concept as a whole have failed to see that repeatedly and are very quick to point fingers and accuse people of condoning the executions of anyone for anything.
    You know that you are currently dealing with absolutes too, right? You even said it yourself: If there's not an ounce of doubt. That sounds pretty absolute to me. In fact, my argument is actually saying that humans aren't "absolute" and will do mistakes. Which is, in my opinion, enough of a reason to be against an absolute penalty like the death penalty.

    Frankly if you need to rely on hypotheses instead of referring to very practical cases like this current one or this one then you're already going way too far off-tracks with your argument and you need to rethink your strategy wholesale.
    It's not relying on hypotheses. I am not saying "what if an innocent was killed", because that actually happened and will happen again, because humans aren't perfect.

  3. Post #123
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    27,983 Posts
    You can write a law to apply to specific cases. That's how laws work.

    That's why death penalty isn't an eligible sentence for every single crime out there. It would not be a stretch to make it law that death penalty is only available as a sentence if extremely stringent, specific circumstances are met that are extraordinary and only occur in situations where any other sentence would not fit or be humane to conduct.

    In fact that's pretty much how some other countries treat it.

    Edited:

    Saying "I'm for the death penalty when it's clear the person can't be reformed/is guilty beyond doubt" is as meaningless as the classic "Communism is great in theory!"
    You're forgetting the very important criteria where it would be more inhumane to actually keep someone locked up for life than to kill them off.

    Which once again goes down to the Belgian case linked several times already. Keeping someone in a jail cell for potentially decades upon decades when they want to die is giving them a fate worse than death.

    The death sentence is never not going to be a grey area. Trying to make it universally bad or good is dumb either-way. But if the other practically available alternatives are going to go straight into bad territory for specific cases, then the death penalty becomes a practically necessity, however sad it is.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome France Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  4. Post #124
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    19,250 Posts
    You can write a law to apply to specific cases. That's how laws work.

    That's why death penalty isn't an eligible sentence for every single crime out there. It would not be a stretch to make it law that death penalty is only available as a sentence if extremely stringent, specific circumstances are met that are extraordinary and only occur in situations where any other sentence would not fit or be humane to conduct.

    In fact that's pretty much how some other countries treat it.
    Sure you can. But unless you've managed to make it 100% bulletproof, someone is going to care enough to find a way to apply it to their case. And when the outcome of their success is a totally irreversible decision like ending a life, that's quite a big gamble to take.

    Most other countries aren't as willing to hand out death penalties, or have otherwise stricken them from the list of ways to fuck a guy up. The populace of those countries likely doesn't view the death penalty in a good light. The states in the US that still practice the death penalty are likely to have a population who do still see it as a good solution however. Hence why nobody who would remove it has had a chance to do so.

    How many innocent people need to actually be caught up by someone arguing far too fervently for their death before it needs stopping? One is already far too many as far as I care.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United Kingdom Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  5. Post #125
    NoOneKnowsMe's Avatar
    June 2011
    356 Posts
    You can write a law to apply to specific cases. That's how laws work.
    And how do you make sure that the law is correct and is going to be correctly applied in all future cases?

    It would not be a stretch to make it law that death penalty is only available as a sentence if extremely stringent, specific circumstances are met that are extraordinary and only occur in situations where any other sentence would not fit or be humane to conduct.
    I am pretty sure that's already the case, if it wasn't, you definitely should be against the death penalty.

    In fact that's pretty much how some other countries treat it.
    I don't see how the death penalty is connected to euthanasia, as the latter one doesn't have to apply to criminals and is also voluntary.

    You're forgetting the very important criteria where it would be more inhumane to actually keep someone locked up for life than to kill them off.
    First of all, locking someone up isn't something final. Killing someone is. Regarding the inhumanity of it, let me quote your other post there:

    the problem I have with a lot of people [...] is that they're basically just appealing to their own emotion [...]

  6. Post #126
    Gold Member
    Araknid's Avatar
    July 2010
    14,440 Posts
    Good, fuck him.

  7. Post #127
    Gold Member
    Mr.Brown's Avatar
    September 2010
    5,994 Posts
    makes me glad im in a country that still has death penalty and firing squads

    if a man takes another man's life shouldn't he pay the ultimate price?
    especially when he takes nine of them
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome Taiwan Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  8. Post #128
    LTJGPliskin's Avatar
    September 2013
    6,212 Posts
    I like how so many posters on SH pretend to be all anti-death penalty, but when something like this comes up, it's "OH WELL HE WON'T BE MISSED LOL HE'S JUST EVIL"
    The death penalty is fucking barbaric, we're a developed country, there's no reason for us to have it. It's in the goddamn US Constitution that we're not allowed to have cruel and unusual punishment, what makes us better than this piece of shit if we kill him? It's not to put him out of his misery, it's just petty fucking revenge. He deserves to rot in prison, not be killed.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 4 (list)

  9. Post #129
    Go make yourself a fucking waffle.
    Naught's Avatar
    April 2012
    7,014 Posts
    why do people always take the moral high ground when it comes to the death penalty when keeping prisoners like this locked up for life is going to be even worse? It's going to drain just as much money, and they're also going to get tortured by other prisoners and possibly just go insane.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  10. Post #130
    Blazedol's Avatar
    March 2013
    5,488 Posts
    what makes us better than this piece of shit if we kill him?
    I'm against the dealth penalty fully but can we please, please stop saying this, it's complete bullshit.

    Even if i disagree with killing him, his executioners and the judges that sentanced him are still better than him because they didn't commit a mass shooting out if bigotry, they studied and analyzed his case and decided that killing him wiuld be the best course of action.

    why do people always take the moral high ground when it comes to the death penalty when keeping prisoners like this locked up for life is going to be even worse? It's going to drain just as much money, and they're also going to get tortured by other prisoners and possibly just go insane.
    It actually wouldn't drain as much money, and life imprisonment wouldn't actually be as scarring (or common) as it is now if our prisons weren't so shit.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Android Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  11. Post #131
    Gold Member
    cccritical's Avatar
    June 2009
    6,745 Posts
    I like how so many posters on SH pretend to be all anti-death penalty, but when something like this comes up, it's "OH WELL HE WON'T BE MISSED LOL HE'S JUST EVIL"
    The death penalty is fucking barbaric, we're a developed country, there's no reason for us to have it. It's in the goddamn US Constitution that we're not allowed to have cruel and unusual punishment, what makes us better than this piece of shit if we kill him? It's not to put him out of his misery, it's just petty fucking revenge. He deserves to rot in prison, not be killed.
    How is it barbaric? Why do you think there's no reason for its existence? Why would you consider it cruel and unusual? How is it petty? Why is "rotting in prison" less cruel or unusual than chemical injection?

    You've brought up pretty much every point anti-death penalty posters usually do but I've never seen them expounded upon and I'm genuinely curious, a lot of this is just personal opinion/"it's 20xx" mentality and I haven't heard anything that sways me just yet
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  12. Post #132
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    3,802 Posts
    why do people always take the moral high ground when it comes to the death penalty when keeping prisoners like this locked up for life is going to be even worse? It's going to drain just as much money, and they're also going to get tortured by other prisoners and possibly just go insane.
    It costs less money overall actually, and the living standards of prisoners is a separate but important topic
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Canada Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  13. Post #133
    good sentence.

    imagine being so stupid that you think this guy deserves to live.
    This is beyond dumb, as a human you have the right to live above all other human rights just like the right to a fair trial.

    The U.S. constitution needs to be amended so they cant make laws that say "lol you only have rights if you obey all the laws we make, criminals don't have rights".

    Slavery, murder, theft etc is basically legal if you commit a felony when it shouldn't be. If you have someone in prison it makes no sense to violate any of their rights if you don't absolutely have to.

    People shouldn't have the ability to decide if someone lives or dies because they broke the law because then you could basically have the death penalty for any arbitrary law and it would be constitutional.

  14. Post #134
    NoOneKnowsMe's Avatar
    June 2011
    356 Posts
    How is it barbaric?
    I don't see why killing wouldn't be "barbaric".
    Why do you think there's no reason for its existence?
    What is the reason for the existence? Many countries do fine without it.
    Why would you consider it cruel and unusual?
    Again: Killing is cruel. You may not agree with that, but I do.
    How is it petty?
    Who is helped by the death penalty?
    Why is "rotting in prison" less cruel or unusual than chemical injection?
    One isn't final, the other is.
    and I haven't heard anything that sways me just yet
    ...or ignored those that could have.

  15. Post #135
    Gold Member
    abcpea's Avatar
    July 2005
    8,086 Posts
    good sentence.

    imagine being so stupid that you think this guy deserves to live.
    he's just a kid...

  16. Post #136
    Gold Member
    Mr.Brown's Avatar
    September 2010
    5,994 Posts
    he's just a kid...
    um he's 22, he should know better

  17. Post #137
    Gold Member
    abcpea's Avatar
    July 2005
    8,086 Posts
    oh well i guess we'll just kill 'im then

  18. Post #138
    Gold Member
    GhillieBacca's Avatar
    July 2010
    2,498 Posts
    One isn't final, the other is.
    Until he is cornered in the shower and the next day he is shanked to death.

    Guards ain't going to give a shit about some scrawny little turd, life in federal prison means surefire death.

  19. Post #139
    Gold Member
    Araknid's Avatar
    July 2010
    14,440 Posts
    he's just a kid...
    What a shit excuse.
    22 years old isn't a kid.
    Even a fucking 8 year old should know that you shouldn't, you know, go and shoot a bunch of people in a church.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 New Opera Australia Show Events Starred Starred x 7 (list)

  20. Post #140
    Go make yourself a fucking waffle.
    Naught's Avatar
    April 2012
    7,014 Posts
    he's just a kid...
    who killed a lot of people and wants to be a martyr for his cause. I'm not really for or against the death penalty but saying he's just a kid has no real meaning. He's a perfectly functioning adult who did some horrible things.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  21. Post #141
    Penis Architect
    paul simon's Avatar
    November 2008
    15,838 Posts
    who killed a lot of people and wants to be a martyr for his cause. I'm not really for or against the death penalty but saying he's just a kid has no real meaning. He's a perfectly functioning adult who did some horrible things.
    Evidently not.

  22. Post #142
    NoOneKnowsMe's Avatar
    June 2011
    356 Posts
    Until he is cornered in the shower and the next day he is shanked to death.

    Guards ain't going to give a shit about some scrawny little turd, life in federal prison means surefire death.
    If that is what usually happens, then it's a problem with the prison system in the US, not with the life sentence.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  23. Post #143
    Duck M.'s Avatar
    August 2013
    4,853 Posts
    Until he is cornered in the shower and the next day he is shanked to death.

    Guards ain't going to give a shit about some scrawny little turd, life in federal prison means surefire death.
    Perhaps there's also an issue with federal prison conditions in the US? I know that's a hot take, but stay with me.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Android Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  24. Post #144
    every single person deserves to live, no matter what they've done.

    Edited:



    yes i do. 100%
    Including Hitler? Stalin? Mao zedong?

  25. Post #145
    Blazedol's Avatar
    March 2013
    5,488 Posts
    Including Hitler? Stalin? Mao zedong?
    living doesn't equate to having power

  26. Post #146
    Gold Member
    abcpea's Avatar
    July 2005
    8,086 Posts
    What a shit excuse.
    I dont need an excuse

    You dont need to kill him
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8.1 Firefox Australia Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  27. Post #147
    KANEDAAAA
    Anyx's Avatar
    August 2011
    1,191 Posts
    Hooray, rather than just shoving him into a dark corner, locking him there, and tossing they key away, here comes the millions of dollars worth of taxpayer money to fight appeals and generally fuck around getting him out of death row for the next god knows how many years only to end up giving him the easy way out. The dude has become a very expensive martyr in the making.

  28. Post #148
    LTJGPliskin's Avatar
    September 2013
    6,212 Posts
    I'm against the dealth penalty fully but can we please, please stop saying this, it's complete bullshit.

    Even if i disagree with killing him, his executioners and the judges that sentanced him are still better than him because they didn't commit a mass shooting out if bigotry, they studied and analyzed his case and decided that killing him wiuld be the best course of action.
    Well it's obviously not the best course of action considering how many European countries don't even have the death penalty and have a much lower crime rate.
    Our criminal justice system is shit, and this is just another example of that. We're a society that glorifies violence and revenge and that shit shouldn't seep into our legal system.

    How is it barbaric? Why do you think there's no reason for its existence? Why would you consider it cruel and unusual? How is it petty? Why is "rotting in prison" less cruel or unusual than chemical injection?

    You've brought up pretty much every point anti-death penalty posters usually do but I've never seen them expounded upon and I'm genuinely curious, a lot of this is just personal opinion/"it's 20xx" mentality and I haven't heard anything that sways me just yet
    Killing someone just because they also took a life (or several lives in this case) is incredibly petty. "Oh, this guy's a murderer, fucking kill him" is the basic mentality behind the death penalty.
    This all just goes back to moral standards. Different people have different views, obviously. Me, I just don't think it's morally sound to execute someone even in a situation like this. Is it really morally just to take someone's life?
    Of course, we can't just move toward a European-style penal system, at least not quickly. American culture is, quite honestly, fucked. We're still very much a puritanical country on many issues, heavily divided on whether or not society should progress in a new direction. We glorify our military more than countries with compulsory service, we cling to guns, old ways of governing, outdated social beliefs, and, yes, a borderline draconian criminal justice system that is more focused on punishing criminals and getting revenge than reforming them. We refuse to move forward even if progressive ideals will benefit us because we're still stuck in a Cold War mentality that our own system is the very best and the only one that works.
    But can we reform someone like this? Well, it would incredibly ignorant to think that we're the only country that has white supremacist murderers. That's why we need to properly study other countries, how they handle their prison systems, and what we could do to improve, because in a country like Norway that has considerably luxurious prisons compared to the US, murderers can be reformed, and have been.
    But like I said, that's a very different culture. That's why as a society really need to step back, look in a mirror and start to wonder what we're doing wrong. Reforming our penal system would be a good start, but the opposition to prison reform would be massive, especially from people who fervently support things like the death penalty. Because, like I said, we're a culture that encourages vengeful attitudes in law.
    That's just my massive 2 cents, though. It really comes down to your worldview. We need to keep in mind, however, that our justice system is essentially broken.

  29. Post #149
    I've got a bad feeling about this
    Sonador's Avatar
    December 2007
    2,209 Posts
    I support the death penalty. The people should not have to pay to support a person whose sole existence is a threat to their lives. I do understand the necessity for appeal when a life hangs in the balance, I just wish it was less of a burden to the taxpayers.

    The death penalty, however, is not an arbitrary decision like a bunch of folks in this thread make it out to be. It is a stringently regulated system, and that's evidenced by its sluggishness. I'd be very much opposed to a quick and 'efficient' death penalty, both in that mistakes would be much more likely as much as how that system could be abused.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  30. Post #150
    Gold Member
    HAKKAR!!!'s Avatar
    June 2006
    7,034 Posts
    I don't like the death penalty but I doubt many will shed any tears

  31. Post #151
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,945 Posts
    Life in prison in solitary confinement is pointless for the taxpayer. Why allow him to keep on sucking up resources that could be better used for prisoners that have a chance?

    He deserves death for what he did and his being a martyr shouldn't be a concern. Remember that he tried to reach out to other white supremacist groups but no one wanted to help him coordinate the shooting, why would people idolize a person that they themselves rejected?

    Sometimes you have to kill someone in return for the heinous actions they did. Look at the case of Eichmann. Why should he have been allowed to keep on living?
    Life in prison costs less than the series of lengthy trials and pleas that precede an execution.

    Edited:

    There's good arguments for and against the death penalty but the problem I have with a lot of people being against the death penalty here is that they're basically just appealing to their own emotion without trying to think why they feel that way to begin with and lacking basic critical thinking.
    The death penalty as a concept is literally the definition of appealing to emotion, and somehow you are trying to argue the opposite... What?

    Edited:

    You can write a law to apply to specific cases. That's how laws work.

    That's why death penalty isn't an eligible sentence for every single crime out there. It would not be a stretch to make it law that death penalty is only available as a sentence if extremely stringent, specific circumstances are met that are extraordinary and only occur in situations where any other sentence would not fit or be humane to conduct.

    In fact that's pretty much how some other countries treat it.

    Edited:



    You're forgetting the very important criteria where it would be more inhumane to actually keep someone locked up for life than to kill them off.

    Which once again goes down to the Belgian case linked several times already. Keeping someone in a jail cell for potentially decades upon decades when they want to die is giving them a fate worse than death.

    The death sentence is never not going to be a grey area. Trying to make it universally bad or good is dumb either-way. But if the other practically available alternatives are going to go straight into bad territory for specific cases, then the death penalty becomes a practically necessity, however sad it is.
    Your example of a country doing the death penalty "right" is a country not doing the death penalty. Did you even read the article, or just hoped no one else would?

  32. Post #152
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    27,983 Posts
    Okay here is a legitimate question about this whole "it's barbaric" rhetoric that I keep seeing.

    What makes killing someone "bad" ?

    This may sound stupid, but what exactly do you find in this action that's terrible ? The usual response would be "it just is" or "it's immoral", but I want you to take a solid minute and think what, practically, there is in the killing of someone that actually is repulsive enough to warrant the reaction we have of it now.

    I'm not trying to make a point that murder's A-okay or something, I'm trying to make people think a bit more about why they even have the whole "it's barbaric !!!!" rhetoric when the notion itself of "barbaric" changes every century.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome France Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  33. Post #153
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,945 Posts
    Okay here is a legitimate question about this whole "it's barbaric" rhetoric that I keep seeing.

    What makes killing someone "bad" ?

    This may sound stupid, but what exactly do you find in this action that's terrible ? The usual response would be "it just is" or "it's immoral", but I want you to take a solid minute and think what, practically, there is in the killing of someone that actually is repulsive enough to warrant the reaction we have of it now.

    I'm not trying to make a point that murder's A-okay or something, I'm trying to make people think a bit more about why they even have the whole "it's barbaric !!!!" rhetoric when the notion itself of "barbaric" changes every century.
    Your question is laughable and can be answered by a 4th grader, so here's one for you.

    What makes killing someone "good"?

  34. Post #154
    Gold Member
    kilerabv's Avatar
    April 2010
    11,839 Posts
    He never said it was good.

  35. Post #155
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,945 Posts
    He never said it was good.
    So why argue in its defense if it's not a "good" thing?

  36. Post #156
    Judge, Jury, & Executioner
    Rusty100's Avatar
    September 2005
    68,057 Posts
    Okay here is a legitimate question about this whole "it's barbaric" rhetoric that I keep seeing.

    What makes killing someone "bad" ?

    This may sound stupid, but what exactly do you find in this action that's terrible ? The usual response would be "it just is" or "it's immoral", but I want you to take a solid minute and think what, practically, there is in the killing of someone that actually is repulsive enough to warrant the reaction we have of it now.

    I'm not trying to make a point that murder's A-okay or something, I'm trying to make people think a bit more about why they even have the whole "it's barbaric !!!!" rhetoric when the notion itself of "barbaric" changes every century.
    are you serious
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Australia Show Events Starred Starred x 5 (list)

  37. Post #157
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    27,983 Posts
    Your question is laughable and can be answered by a 4th grader, so here's one for you.
    Actually answer the question then instead of dodging it if it's so easy.

    What makes killing someone "good"?
    The point of the question is to bring up the fact that our moral compass is established by the society we live in, not by some kind of universal rule.

    It's the result of living in a Judeo-Christian society that has built itself around the concept for thousands of years (ten commandments, you shall not kill, etc). Societies that existed either prior or outside of this specific framework are known to have had a different, sometimes more lax stance on killing.

    Killing someone isn't "good" in our society, because we've spent more than two thousand years establishing it wasn't. However, killing someone as some form of punishment for a crime is, has always been, and will likely always be a grey area, because it not being an outright "good thing" doesn't make it "bad" by default.

    So why argue in its defense if it's not a "good" thing?
    See, this pretty much proves my point. A Manichean way of thinking only entrenches you deeper into a childish perception of the world where the whole of humanity can be categorized in either "good" or "bad". Those notions can only really be applied in context and are almost always going to cause problems when applied as absolutes.

  38. Post #158
    Judge, Jury, & Executioner
    Rusty100's Avatar
    September 2005
    68,057 Posts
    Actually answer the question then instead of dodging it if it's so easy.


    The point of the question is to bring up the fact that our moral compass is established by the society we live in, not by some kind of universal rule.

    It's the result of living in a Judeo-Christian society that has built itself around the concept for thousands of years (ten commandments, you shall not kill, etc). Societies that existed either prior or outside of this specific framework are known to have had a different, sometimes more lax stance on killing.

    Killing someone isn't "good" in our society, because we've spent more than two thousand years establishing it wasn't. However, killing someone as some form of punishment for a crime is, has always been, and will likely always be a grey area, because it not being an outright "good thing" doesn't make it "bad" by default.



    See, this pretty much proves my point. A Manichean way of thinking only entrenches you deeper into a childish perception of the world where the whole of humanity can be categorized in either "good" or "bad". Those notions can only really be applied in context and are almost always going to cause problems when applied as absolutes.
    i want you to print out your last post and seal it in a time capsule for you to open in 10 years

  39. Post #159
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    27,983 Posts
    i want you to print out your last post and seal it in a time capsule for you to open in 10 years
    What exactly did you think my goal was with that post that it'd warrant this kind of snide bullshit instead of an actual response ?

    Because I've made it pretty clear that I wasn't trying to convince anyone murder's fine (because it isn't) and simply asked people to put a little more reflection into their reasoning than "oh well it's bad because it's barbaric and it's barbaric because it's bad".

  40. Post #160
    Gold Member
    Sherow_Xx's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,073 Posts
    Your question is laughable and can be answered by a 4th grader, so here's one for you.

    What makes killing someone "good"?
    In this case, it removes a murderer from the world and ensures that the murderer in question won't have to sit around in a cell forever. As I've said before, I don't know where I stand on this, but I actually think that's an interesting question and these rebuttals are bad, and that's interesting to me.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox Germany Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)