Murder defined...The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
An individual is found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and is sentenced to death. This person is then allowed years of appeals prior to execution of the jury's and judge's orders and you equate this with "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice".
You must have a cynical disdain for our judicial system and laws to hold this position.
Nobody should be granted that kind of authority and history should serve as a lesson that "lawful killing" doesn't make it right or just. The obvious and overzealous comparison would be that it was lawful to kill Jews in Nazi Germany.
Now you equate the slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany with our judicial system? Being of Jewish heritage, this is an offensive and foolish comparison.
I stand by my statement: "You must have a cynical disdain for our judicial system and laws to hold this position".
Slaughtering Jews or Mormons is not comparable to executing criminals. But the "lawful" slaughter of Jews and Mormons goes a long way to prove that you cannot justify any killing by saying it's okay just because it's lawful.
Please feel free to argue with the actual point that was made instead of blowing a single comment out of proportion so that you can act all offended and detract from the actual topic you were trying to discuss with me. If this is really how you take to debating to a serious topic then maybe you need to agree to disagree on certain subjects and move on to those areas of the forum you can provide useful information. If you troll a thread such as this, man up, be prepared for the potential outcome.
.
The "lawful" slaughter, as you say, was only lawful in the minds of a murderous dictator and his followers, not in anything comparable to our judicial system. The murder of innocent humans by a mass murder is with malice. You believe that 12 jurors a judge and several appeals courts executes someone with malice? This is what you must believe to believe it is murder.
I am far from offended. Your use of my quote on a different thread "If this is really how you take to debating to a serious topic then maybe you need to agree to disagree on certain subjects and move on to those areas of the forum you can provide useful information. If you troll a thread such as this, man up, be prepared for the potential outcome". is a sincere form of flattery. :laugh:
Interesting thing about capital punishment... regardless of questions concerning morality ... personal opinion/beliefs... and philosophical arguments... the one inescapable fact is..........
If society uses the law to kill a killer guilty of killing an innocent......... that killer will not kill an innocent again.
Capgun originally mentioned BIGOT in post #64
pistol annie Responded to Capgun by in post #71
So I simply responded in kind about being called a name.
The person who is charged with murder also ends up with homicide on their death certificate when they are executed. Homicide and murder are pretty interchangeable, but do speak to intent. So yes, the legal system does differentiate between the intent, but not the act itself. If taking someones life is wrong, then punishing it by taking someones life should be equally wrong. To differentiate between lawful and unlawful killing gives a small group the power to decide it's okay to kill this person, but not okay to kill that person. Nobody should be granted that kind of authority and history should serve as a lesson that "lawful killing" doesn't make it right or just. The obvious and overzealous comparison would be that it was lawful to kill Jews in Nazi Germany. But a more apt and applicable comparison would be the law that made it "lawful" to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri.
Link Removed
I have a cynical disdain for anyone who thinks they can appropriately decide who deserves to have their life taken and more than ample justification for that position. The point of my argument, however, was that it is a complicated subject and neither side is necessarily wrong but simply prioritize one of two different factors that both hold good intention but find themselves in opposition in this particular topic.
Ignorance and hatred are mental diseases. If you really think that the abortion and death penalty arguments are as simple as executing babies and protecting murderers, then you've got it bad. If it were really that simple everyone would probably be able to agree, but it's not. I'm anti-abortion but my belief in not infringing upon the rights of others conflicts with that a great deal. I'm anti death penalty also, not because I'm inclined to protect people that commit horrific acts, but because I don't think "he did it first" is a valid argument for anything, let alone something as serious as murder.
[snip]
Quoted for truth.Arguing with a liberal on any subject is a waste of time. The liberal is right you are wrong, end of argument.
Arguing with a liberal on any subject is a waste of time. The liberal is right you are wrong, end of argument.
The same can be said of conservatives.
I personally do not regard myself as either... unless you mean the old definition of conservative; keep the government out of my/anyone's business.
The modern conservative definition with all it's moral platitudes and stances is just as bad as the liberal definition.
The Republican party has changed, moved to the left while the Democrats have moved way, far left.
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?