Anyway, nice to get rid of a scum.
Let's try, though, to keep in mind that there are other larger scale killers, who are not gonna be touched at all...
Printable View
Anyway, nice to get rid of a scum.
Let's try, though, to keep in mind that there are other larger scale killers, who are not gonna be touched at all...
of course, one could argue that a doctor who performs abortions is nothing more than a hired killerQuote:
Originally posted by kAb@4 September 2003 - 00:35
meh, he deserves it.
because u disagree with a certain practice is no reason to kill him and a friend.
see what religion does?
nothing but killing and destruction.
Execution in this case was pointless, as the man was motivated by a perceived higher power and his fear of death did not dissuade him from committing the act.
The purpose of the death penalty is not an expression of the "eye for an eye" mentality, but rather to put fear into the minds of those about to commit violent acts.
In this case, we have a minister who felt compelled to kill. If his actions were just, how did his church feel? Well, they excommunicated him. Was he acting bravely when he shot the 3 people, compelled by a moral imperative. Why then did he run? He was a confused man, not a martyr.
Bottom line:
1) He was a mental defective. All it takes is one look at his countenence to see that his eggs are scrambled. Pictured here, Paul can't wait to get down to the laundry room to be sodomized.
http://www.mttu.com/poc/Paul_Hill-1.jpg
2) In the delusional world of the mental defective, the concept of the death penalty plays no role (so its' position as a deterrent is impotent).
So in this case, Paul Hill and the death penalty are both bad things- 2 wrongs, you know the rest.
Well, 3GN, you may argue that point till the cows come home and I might even be persuaded to listen.Quote:
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@3 September 2003 - 18:43
of course, one could argue that a doctor who performs abortions is nothing more than a hired killer
But if you think that Mr. Hill is vindicated by his disagreement with the law, then we have a problem.
absolutely notQuote:
Originally posted by clocker@4 September 2003 - 01:32
But if you think that Mr. Hill is vindicated by his disagreement with the law, then we have a problem.
he is in contradiction with the law and should therefore be punished
edit: that was a sweeping statement, but it applies here
Oh, okay.
I tend to agree with Hobbes on this one, but for a different reason.
Hill is being handed the role of martyr on a platter tonight, and many of the more extreme anti-abortion folks are going to step up their terrorist activities, I fear.
Hey Clocker, look who just showed up?
http://www.deep-end.com/archive/arch104.gif
I'm trying ease our way back into this serious stuff.
I see you used your week off productively, Hobbes.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx
Spam off
It's about time we came back. ;)
:ninja: