Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You were the one bringing up the idea that lives and the takings of life are not all equal.
Yes, honey.Was I now, my dear quatona?
Your entire argument so far rested on your assertion that people can forfeit their right to live, i.e. that some lives can be taken and others can´t.I can't remember exactly where I said that so if you want to point out the exact part that says that?
*is curious*
If I said something I didn't mean I'd like to know about it.
But it is still murder, is it not?I feel that the only right given up by being convicted of a crime is the "right to freedom".
Because murderers are not equal. Most human killings are crimes of passion, they are done as a reaction to something horrible happening. People who kill in the spur of the moment are usually not likely to kill again. They usually serve a long jail/prison sentence and are released. They really don't pose a threat to others.
I'm not really speaking of those who can't make a coherent choice due to mental illness.Some murderers are clinically insane (I personally feel that one has to be somewhat crazy to even think of killing another person). They are delusional and sometimes can be treated with medication. Such people are usually court ordered into State or Private mental health institutions, and I believe that many of them live out their lives there.
No such thing as a "hate" crime, IMO.Some murderers commit hate crimes.
Yet it is still murder. A black spot is a black spot is a black spot.They are motivated by the hatred of a given group of people, and act out upon individuals they consider members of that group. They almost always pose a threat to the other members of that group. Such people are often given life in prison.
Murder does not have varying degrees to it. Murder is just that, murder.And some murderers kill for other reasons, money, power, pleasure. They have numerous reasons. Really, every case needs to be considered separately, and punished as seen fit by a jury. That is, after all, why we have trial by jury. Because every case is different and needs to be carefully considered by itself.
If going by the end result (a person is killed) murder and death penalty are exactly the same, as well.Murder does not have varying degrees to it. Murder is just that, murder.
The end result is exactly the same no matter how the victim is killed.
Yes, honey.
Your entire argument so far rested on your assertion that people can forfeit their right to live, i.e. that some lives can be taken and others can´t.
Yeah, the legal system disagrees with you. As does Wikipedia.No such thing as a "hate" crime, IMO.
Well, I suppose you could say that. And I could say that there is no difference between Straight Marriage and Gay Marriage because the end result is that a couple joins in a long-term bond.But it is still murder, is it not?
I'm not really speaking of those who can't make a coherent choice due to mental illness.
I'm speaking of those who know right and wrong, and choose to do the wrong anyway.
...
Yet it is still murder. A black spot is a black spot is a black spot.
Murder does not have varying degrees to it. Murder is just that, murder.
The end result is exactly the same no matter how the victim is killed.
Quote me then. And state the contradiction.
*smiles like a rockstar*
Don't leave me in the dark to my own possible mistake.
If going by the end result (a person is killed) murder and death penalty are exactly the same, as well.
To bring in the other topic of this thread, I see allowing pregnant women to legally choose to abort as a likewise "balancing" act. The rights of the woman have to be balanced against the life of the unborn human living inside her, and the property rights of the man involved. Until the unborn human can be immediately removed without resulting in its death, I see allowing for the legal choice to abort as the only way to currently resolve this three part scale.Maybe there's truth to that. But I see it as balancing a scale. However biased or mean that may seem.
I think you give up your right to live when you murder others.(post#279)
EXAMPLE: You killed ten people. Your life is now forfeit.
I don't think that's unreasonable. (post#287)
You can willfully give something up, like right to life, without asking for death. When you murder someone, you give up your right to live, IMO, as you just violated that same right of another human being. (post#291)
All this is irreconcilable with your assertion that all lives (or the taking of all lives - this wasn´t entirely clear from the grammar you used) are the same.
To bring in the other topic of this thread, I see allowing pregnant women to legally choose to abort as a likewise "balancing" act. The rights of the woman have to be balanced against the life of the unborn human living inside her, and the property rights of the man involved. Until the unborn human can be immediately removed without resulting in its death, I see allowing for the legal choice to abort as the only way to currently resolve this three part scale.
Yeah, the legal system disagrees with you. As does Wikipedia.
Well, I suppose you could say that. And I could say that there is no difference between Straight Marriage and Gay Marriage because the end result is that a couple joins in a long-term bond.
But the reality is, there are many different reasons that murder happens, there are many different situations that it happens in. Each one is different, and I think that we must logically and fairly look at each one differently.
But maybe it is the same when a drug addict stabs someone to death, when organized crime orders a woman to be shot, and when a boy beats a toddler to death with a baseball bat. After all, the "end result" is the same, right?
Why does free will matter?
I thought you might enjoy that. *grin*Such venom... i like it.
It is about as credible a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica, actually.And wikipedia is hardly a credible source, m'dear.
I think, while I do agree that most murders and many crimes are motivated by hate, that it is fair to take into consideration when a given person's crime is motivated by hatred of a specific group rather than of a specific person. Because that makes them a potential danger to a wider selection of the population than someone who "just" beat their neighbor to death. Because a larger percentage of the population is, say Vietnamese American, than living next to that guy.I regard all crimes as hate crimes, as they are all committed out of hate. If not made out of love, they are made out of hate.
Whether there's more hatred in one than the other doesn't give say, murder or assault added conditions for punishment just because the two people are not of the same skin color. Murder is murder. Assault is assault.
REGARDLESS of skin color, the punishment should not be more harsh than what would normally be given.
And don't get me started on our government. There's a lot of darkness there.
I thought you might enjoy that. *grin*
It is about as credible a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica, actually.
I think, while I do agree that most murders and many crimes are motivated by hate, that it is fair to take into consideration when a given person's crime is motivated by hatred of a specific group rather than of a specific person. Because that makes them a potential danger to a wider selection of the population than someone who "just" beat their neighbor to death. Because a larger percentage of the population is, say Vietnamese American, than living next to that guy.
See, that sort of thing is just silly. If such crimes are being tried as "hate crimes" then I don't agree with that. I feel that "hate crimes" are very, very specific things, like crimes committed by KKK members motivated by their hate for minorities.Well, maybe they could give him a few considerations, but they shouldn't be so willing to dismiss every interracial fight as "racist" or "motivated by racism".
If I were to get into a fight with say, someone of another race (for simplicity's sake we'll say African American... hell, I could go with any race really), under today's corrupt judicial system I can almost guarantee that they could sue ME for a "hate' crime, but I couldn't do the same thing, even if he attacks me first. Nor could it be considered outside of the scope of racism.
A lot of people would be screaming for me to get GUILTY of racism even if I hadn't started that fight and were reacting out of self defense, if the other person chose to try and press charges of "hate" crimes.
The current laws concerning "hate" crimes are, um, corrupt and one-sided, IMO. At least enough to exploit it.
You said:Umm.... what? That's your contradiction?
I don't see how my statements contradict either each other or what I've been saying so far.
I've been saying murder as a sin is the same, there is no greater or lesser murder.
But when did I start talking about lives being the same?
I'm confused.
The only thing I have been pointing out is that your argument is not consistent. Whether you are biased or mean is none of my concern in this discussion.Oi.
*facepalm*
Maybe there's truth to that. But I see it as balancing a scale. However biased or mean that may seem.
Such venom... i like it.
*smiles like a rock star*
And wikipedia is hardly a credible source, m'dear.
I regard all crimes as hate crimes, as they are all committed out of hate. If not made out of love, they are made out of hate.
Whether there's more hatred in one than the other doesn't give say, murder or assault added conditions for punishment just because the two people are not of the same skin color. Murder is murder. Assault is assault.
REGARDLESS of skin color, the punishment should not be more harsh than what would normally be given.
And don't get me started on our government. There's a lot of darkness there.
*sigh*
You seem to think there is no such thing as an unbiased, outside view of a situation, which enables a judgment call to be made after sufficient evidence and testimony have been provided.
I weep for America's judicial system.
Justice does not have a different definition. So which one are you using that justice and vengeance (perhaps I should have said revenge) are synonyms?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?