Firing Sqads?

Bradskii · Apr 24, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
It obviously is God's Will, however fortunate or unfortunate that is.

Oh yeah. Some of you guys still do that. I guess that what you meant is that it's God's will in some places*. Except that just seems...odd. That He thinks you can execute a person on this side of an arbitrary line, but not on that side.

* Until He decides it's not? Which is even odder.

Bradskii · Apr 24, 2026

mourningdove~ said:
Some people actually prefer dying by firing squad.

You got AI to tell us how it thinks people might prefer to be executed?

Why?

2PhiloVoid · Apr 24, 2026

Bradskii said:
Oh yeah. Some of you guys still do that. I guess that what you meant is that it's God's will in some places*. Except that just seems...odd. That He thinks you can execute a person on this side of an arbitrary line, but not on that side.

* Until He decides it's not? Which is even odder.

Who is this "you guys" you're referring to? I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. In fact, I'm sure of it.

ThatRobGuy · Apr 24, 2026

FireDragon76 said:
Abortion was and is a manufactured issue for most non-Catholics in the conservative movement in the US. It doesn't reflect a consistent ethic, it reflects cultural symbolism around reproduction and gender roles.

In all fairness, it was one of those reactionary issues where the vigor with which pro-life people fought to restrict abortion was coupled to how much the pro-choice side was was trying to expand it.

Through most of my childhood and adolescence, I remember the Clinton/GenX-Democrat position of "safe, legal, and rare" being one that, while not meeting the "ideal" of either of the polar extremes, was one that 70%+ of the population was willing to tolerate and let sleeping dogs lie for the most part.

The rejuvenation of the efforts to ban it as much as possible were a direct response to the efforts to try normalize and expand it.

As soon as the "rare" in "safe, legal, and rare" was scrapped for a more maximalist position of normalizing late term abortion, and repealing the hyde amendment, that was the kindling.

"Well, why should it be rare, it's not a bad thing?, so we're going to advocate accordingly" was just begging to rejuvenate the extremely staunch pro-life sentiments that had been rather dormant for a few decades.

FYI, the modern polling would indicate that the safe, legal, and rare (with reasonable term limits, and special exceptions for the 3 edge case scenarios) is still acceptable to well over 60% of people in the US.

However, per NPR:
That's reflected not only in an increased willingness to be unapologetic about having abortions, but also in the politics of abortion rights. The 1990s-era Democratic slogan "safe, legal and rare" is now deeply controversial, and many abortion-rights activists consider it inherently stigmatizing.

In fact, when people like former Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said they wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare," they were met with backlash.

When a former pro-choice democrat and a former president of planned parenthood are getting booed by their own tribe for merely suggesting "abortion is an unfortunate necessity, but not something that should celebrated, over-normalized, or propped up as some sort of beacon of empowerment", that would indicate that the left lost the plot as much as the right did.

Bradskii · Apr 24, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
While I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty when carried about by the state, if the person is given a choice and they pick that method, so be it I guess...

Actually, some states still do have it on the books as an option

A well loved broadcaster in Australia died a couple of days ago. Many tributes in today's paper. He died at home with his loved ones at a time of his own choosing. It seems odd that we can personally choose a painless and easy death for ourselves, but for others..? Hey, blow chunks out of their body with umpteen high velocity bullets.

The term barbaric comes to mind.

Bradskii · Apr 24, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
Who is this "you guys" you're referring to? I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. In fact, I'm sure of it.

I had to check in case I was confusing you with someone else. But no, you're American (or at least reside there). So it meant 'some of you Americans...' I thought it was obvious, but I hope that clears the confusion you felt.

ThatRobGuy · Apr 24, 2026

Bradskii said:
A well loved broadcaster in Australia died a couple of days ago. Many tributes in today's paper. He died at home with his loved ones at a time of his own choosing. It seems odd that we can personally choose a painless and easy death for ourselves, but for others..? Hey, blow chunks out of their body with umpteen high velocity bullets.

The term barbaric comes to mind.

I'm a supporter of physician assisted suicide for terminal illness if that's what you're referring to, so you'll get no arguments from me on that.

The graphic "blow chunks out of someone" aside.

One still has to balance criminal punishment with other types of scenarios and acknowledge the differences.

Note: I mentioned earlier, I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty.

However, if a serial child rapist/murderer gets convicted, and requests a physician assisted suicide via peaceful painless means as to not have to suffer spending the rest of their life in prison, are you granting them that request?

The idea that we have a duty to keep serial predators as comfortable and discomfort-free (and offer them easy-outs) as we would a good person who has stage-4 metastatic cancer isn't consistent with any sense of ethics or morals we have in western civilization.

That said, I'll reiterate, I'm not a big supporter of the death penalty... but the idea that we should have to cater to the comfort level of "hey, this guy raped and killed three 9 year olds" that we would for "Uncle Ron got pancreatic cancer and is suffering, we need to allow him the option to go out on his own terms if he so chooses" isn't a reasonable expectation.

Bradskii · Apr 24, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm a supporter of physician assisted suicide for terminal illness if that's what you're referring to, so you'll get no arguments from me on that.

The graphic "blow chunks out of someone" aside.

One still has to balance criminal punishment with other types of scenarios and acknowledge the differences.

Note: I mentioned earlier, I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty.

However, if a serial child rapist/murderer gets convicted, and requests a physician assisted suicide via peaceful painless means as to not have to suffer spending the rest of their life in prison, are you granting them that request?

The idea that we have a duty to keep serial predators as comfortable and discomfort-free (and offer them easy-outs) as we would a good person who has stage-4 metastatic cancer isn't consistent with any sense of ethics or morals we have in western civilization.

That said, I'll reiterate, I'm not a big supporter of the death penalty... but the idea that we should have to cater to the comfort level of "hey, this guy raped and killed three 9 year olds" that we would for "Uncle Ron got pancreatic cancer and is suffering, we need to allow him the option to go out on his own terms if he so chooses" isn't a reasonable expectation.

I'm rather obviously of the same mind regarding the death penalty. But I also have a logical objection to retributive punishment. A tough position to personally maintain I'll admit. But what you believe and what you'd prefer are not often the same thing.

NxNW · Apr 24, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
As soon as the "rare" in "safe, legal, and rare" was scrapped for a more maximalist position of normalizing late term abortion

Never happened. Nobody is pushing for, or having elective late term abortions. Not happening.

ThatRobGuy said:
When a former pro-choice democrat and a former president of planned parenthood are getting booed by their own tribe for merely suggesting "abortion is an unfortunate necessity, but not something that should celebrated, over-normalized, or propped up as some sort of beacon of empowerment", that would indicate that the left lost the plot as much as the right did.

Nobody is having or celebrating elective late term abortions.

That's a fabricated claim by the far right.

NxNW · Apr 24, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
However, if a serial child rapist/murderer gets convicted, and requests a physician assisted suicide via peaceful painless means as to not have to suffer spending the rest of their life in prison, are you granting them that request?

The idea that we have a duty to keep serial predators as comfortable and discomfort-free (and offer them easy-outs) as we would a good person who has stage-4 metastatic cancer isn't consistent with any sense of ethics or morals we have in western civilization.

That said, I'll reiterate, I'm not a big supporter of the death penalty... but the idea that we should have to cater to the comfort level of "hey, this guy raped and killed three 9 year olds" that we would for "Uncle Ron got pancreatic cancer and is suffering, we need to allow him the option to go out on his own terms if he so chooses" isn't a reasonable expectation.

If we accept the death penalty, do we also accept the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, or not?

It's a simple question.

Pommer · Apr 24, 2026

Bradskii said:
You got AI to tell us how it thinks people might prefer to be executed?

Why?

Still waiting on an irony button

ThatRobGuy · Apr 24, 2026

Bradskii said:
I'm rather obviously of the same mind regarding the death penalty. But I also have a logical objection to retributive punishment. A tough position to personally maintain I'll admit. But what you believe and what you'd prefer are not often the same thing.

Ultimately my position is that the death penalty is flawed because the justice system can be flawed.

If you execute someone based on circumstantial and questionable evidence, and better evidence shows up 5 years later that exonerates them, you can't un-ring that bell. As where a life-in-prison terms can be reversed with some form of compensation paid at the very least.

However, for cases heinous cases where there's no doubt, while your concerns about retributive justice are valid, there should also be no expectation of making a punishment "as comfortable as possible". Otherwise, it's not an actual punishment.

So while I'd prefer there be no death penalty, if that's the law of the jurisdiction, then there's no onus to make that death penalty "the most comfortable version" of the punishment.

The same way that if life in prison is max according to the law of the jurisdiction, there's no onus to give the person a comfortable apartment-like setting with a big screen TV and cushy leather recliner & surround sound to serve out their sentence.

Ultimately, there does need to be some sort of deterring factor introduced, otherwise, there's nothing to stop a person from acting on bad baser urges.

It's the same reason why we all get understandably frustrated when some rich guy gets a sentence in a "resort prison" (otherwise known as "Club Fed" where they're still provided ample "creature comforts"), because we all know that's not a real punishment, and the threat of getting that punishment isn't going to drive behavior in any meaningful way. (like the one in Pensacola where they have tennis courts, and a driving range)

Bradskii · Apr 24, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
It's the same reason why we all get understandably frustrated when some rich guy gets a sentence in a "resort prison" (otherwise known as "Club Fed" where they're still provided ample "creature comforts"), because we all know that's not a real punishment, and the threat of getting that punishment isn't going to drive behavior in any meaningful way. (like the one in Pensacola where they have tennis courts, and a driving range)

If you're a gang member then that sort of incarceration would seem like an encouragement to crime. Not so much for a high flyer.

But what's more important? Retribition or rehabilitation?

expos4ever · Apr 25, 2026

Maria Billingsley said:
I am continually amazed at how many Christians think capital punishment is God's Will.

I submit it is really only American Christians who think this way. In my opinion, so-called Christian culture, in the USA, does contain Biblical ingredients, but these have been alloyed by a bizarre amalgam of beliefs and values that are imported from the outside into the Biblical worldview. Things like militarism, guns, and "let the weak die" capitalism.

ThatRobGuy · Apr 25, 2026

Bradskii said:
But what's more important? Retribition or rehabilitation?

The larger question becomes, is rehabilitation even on the table.

For certain crimes yes...for others, not so much.

A person who robs a bank or steals a car or commits some sort of financial fraud can be rehabilitated. A person who killed and ate their family....yeah, they should never be free to roam the streets again.

Bradskii said:
Not so much for a high flyer.

Actually, you'd be surprised. Obviously there's probably differences in the justice systems between our 2 countries.

But, if someone commits some massive financial impropriety, and part of the sweetheart deal is they get to keep part of the ill-gotten gains, or get other charges expunged as a result of "turning themselves in", then that could be a perverted incentive structure.

Along the lines of "okay, we're going to take $10 million of the 30 million you grifted, and give you immunity on any other bank fraud charges from the past, you just have to plead guilty on this one charge, and report to Club Fed in 3 months to do a 120 day sentence"

then I can see that actually being an incentive. Slumming it for a few months in exchange for keeping most of the money and getting shielded from other charges would be quite the trade-off for some of those guys.

Martha Stewart would be a good example of that. Free & Clear after 5 months in a very relaxed min security federal prison, and paying at $175,000 civil fine.

ThatRobGuy · Apr 25, 2026

NxNW said:
Never happened. Nobody is pushing for, or having elective late term abortions. Not happening.

NxNW said:
Nobody is having or celebrating elective late term abortions.

That's a fabricated claim by the far right.

There's literally an advocacy group (aligned with NARAL - the largest pro choice lobbying entity in the country) called "Shout your abortion"

Shout Your Abortion is normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality. — Shout Your Abortion

Normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality.

shoutyourabortion.com

Mission, Vision, & Leadership - National Abortion Federation

Our Mission NAF unites, supports, and represents abortion providers and the people they serve, in pursuit of accessible and equitable abortion care. Our Vision NAF envisions a just society where abortion care is a basic part of health care. Providers will thrive in communities, empowered to...

nationalabortionfederation.org

All of which either openly state they're looking to normalize it, or use the more veiled approach of rejecting any gestational limits.

And there are clinics specifically advertising such services
Abortion after 26 weeks - Dupont Clinic | Gynecology & Reproductive Health | Washington DC

If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular “reason” to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision.

(they've since changed their verbiage a bit on the website since the last time I've linked it, but the italicized version of the verbiage can be easily accessed through the wayback machine)

And if it's never happening, and not something they advocate for, then when a state passes a rule like "exceptions for the 3 edge cases, but for all elective abortions, we're capping that at 16 weeks", why do the protestors pop up to voice their displeasure with it?

Even the Washington Post (certainly not a right wing outlet) has covered it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-purged-safe-legal-rare-from-the-party/2019/11/15/369af73c-01a4-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

“When she said abortion should be safe, legal and rare,” Gabbard said, “I think she’s correct.” The candidate favors abortion rights early in pregnancy and would codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, but she’d prohibit abortion during the last three months of pregnancy “unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.”
Left-leaning critics quickly descended. The Ohio affiliate of NARAL Pro-Choice America tweeted: “This is a position — making abortion ‘rare’ — not supported by pro-choice advocates.” A headline in Vice said Gabbard was “stuck in the ‘90s,” and the article’s author, Marie Solis, argued that the candidate had revived a “decades-old talking point that pro-choice supporters say only further stigmatizes abortion at a critical moment.” She quoted Amelia Bonow, a co-founder of the pro-abortion-rights group Shout Your Abortion, who said, “I cannot think of a less compelling way to advocate for something than saying that it should be rare. And anyone who uses that phrase is operating from the assumption that abortion is a bad thing.”

And then went on to highlight:
In 2012, the Democratic Party excised the word “rare” from its official platform, writing instead that it favored “safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

If they weren't advocating for that, then why would they have pounced on Tulsi Gabbards position in the DNC primary when she espoused the position of: The candidate favors abortion rights early in pregnancy and would codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, but she’d prohibit abortion during the last three months of pregnancy “unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.”

So I think we can dispense with the whole "Anything that is unflattering to my team or implies some level of complicity in a culture war battle, we just need to pretend is fake and never happened and is purely right-wing rage bait".

Tuur · Apr 25, 2026

Bradskii said:
A well loved broadcaster in Australia died a couple of days ago. Many tributes in today's paper. He died at home with his loved ones at a time of his own choosing. It seems odd that we can personally choose a painless and easy death for ourselves, but for others..? Hey, blow chunks out of their body with umpteen high velocity bullets.

The term barbaric comes to mind.

You want barbaric? Look up lingchi. Or drawn and quartered. Or a SE US Indian tradition of jabbing fat lighter wood splinters into a victim and setting him on fire. Or beheading, English style. Or any of the countless methods devised by the evil heart of mankind, like literally frying a person to death. Thanks to films made in kinder, gentler, times when news reels didn't mind showing the execution of war criminals by firing squad, we have records that the result can be instantaneous or near instantaneous. It's not "blowing off chunks." that's not how you use a firearm. Just ask any hunter.

Or we could go back to hangings before the knot or ring was positioned just so and a table was used to select the proper drop to break the neck. WIth those, person to be executed just dangled until they strangled to death. Even with the drop tables, the executed could strangle. At the hanging of the big name convicted war criminals at Nuremberg, the hangman went behind the curtain and pulled down on one to finish the job. Observers noticed the rope was twitching and surmised the drop didn't break his neck.

Landon Caeli · Apr 25, 2026

They should do it like Squid Games, but the game will be twister. If you fall, you get shot, but if you make it, you just go to prison for life.

keith99 · Apr 25, 2026

Isn't stoning the Christian way to execute people?

Landon Caeli · Apr 25, 2026

keith99 said:
Isn't stoning the Christian way to execute people?

Yes. The Muslims behead, and pirates make you walk the plank.

Firing Sqads?

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Part of the IT crowd

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Part of the IT crowd

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Part of the IT crowd

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

I am the best

sola dosis facit venenum

I am the best

Similar threads