poor bastard...
Printable View
poor bastard...
Devout atheists are my favourite. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You haven't tumbled to the fact atheists abhor and reject consistency in their own conduct, yet demand it of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I tip my hat to Ava, though, who is nonetheless fully committed to being judgmental; there's a good girl. :)
The death sentence should only be brought onto criminals under special circumstances like those who've committed multiple homocides. One murder may seem enough to some people for the criminal to get the death penalty but depending on the case I'd say life in prison. Pedos and rapists should also get a very long term sentences. I do believe that the death sentence is a deterrent.
I'd think so. If you think about the emotional violator, which I would assume to be the most prevalent out there, any deterrent present would at best be marginally represented somewhere in the back of his/her head; most likely, totally absent.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Given this, the deterrent needs to be adequate enough as to curtain the cynical law breaker (i.e the "cold blooded killer"). Any harsher penalty (say a longer prison sentence) would potentially only lead to social problems like hardened criminals for instance. Not to mention prison expenses that could be used in more creative ways (rehabilitation).
As such, the death penalty seem horribly overkill purely from a rational point of view. Then again revenge isn't rational.
From a moral point of view, one can question how government sanctioned murder in a clinical, detached manner holds up ethically compared to the emotionally driven murderer acting in the moment.
I tend to see both as wrong.
On a side note. Norway has a maximum prison sentence of about 20 years for first degree murder. Our homicide rate is way lower than the US, lower than Canada, resembling those of the UK. I certainly don't believe raising the penalties would have any positive effect on crime rates.
I think there may be other social variables than just the way the penal systems are run.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
care to give an example of what an atheist (as part of being an atheist dictates) is demanding of others that they don't demand of themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
As far as I am aware the only thing needed to be classed an atheist is not believing in any god. There are no dictates in atheism as to how to lead ones life. There is individual consistency but as Atheism doesn't follow set rules other than not believing in any god, how could there be a group inconsistency?
As far as I Know the only possible inconsistency there could be as part of being an atheist is saying there is no god......except this one:unsure: which wouldn't be an atheist.
I know some like to call it a religion, nonetheless it's certainly not a "single religion" rather a million+ different religions.
lololololol why do people think atheism is like a cult or something? i'd hate to be all cliche but it's a sort of think for yourself thing
I will admit though that some Atheists take it more seriously than others and are big headed enough to think they can make suggestions for other atheists to follow.This has nothing to do with the author being an atheist and everything to do with him being egotistical.
That or I am not an atheist but instead just someone that doesn't believe in god:unsure:
sourceQuote:
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (OF THE ETHICAL ATHEIST)
NOTE: Free thought and tolerance obviously prohibit these from being "commandments"! Just consider them "suggestions".
1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thou art told.
2. Thou SHALT seek knowledge and truth constantly.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thou hast to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support those who follow these commandments.
Mang, it's practically a religion, as I always say.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Atheists believe that there is no god, christians (for instance) believe that there is one.
Neither can be proved, both are beliefs. And lots of atheist loooove telling others that there is no God, and pointing out the flaws the think they see in the belief systems of others, like some bunch of Jehova's witnesses in reverse.
The only way not to believe I know, is to be an agnostic (if one has to have labels on these things).
AFAIAC, atheists are pretty much religious.
Sure. However you don't have to go all bananas with the shock machine to have a working deterrent, is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccI think there may be other social variables than just the way the penal systems are run.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
I just know you're dying to explain this, so off you go, you've had all night to work something out. I'm sure ALL the atheists in the world are dying to know their common ills.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Religion: A cloak used by some persons in this world who will be warm enough without one in the next.
Canada has a shock machine?
:shuriken:
I like the quote.:lol: It is, however, wasted with the implication that there is an after life.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ava EstelleI just know you're dying to explain this, so off you go, you've had all night to work something out. I'm sure ALL the atheists in the world are dying to know their common ills.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Religion: A cloak used by some persons in this world who will be warm enough without one in the next.
If we just regard the death sentence as a punishment rather than a deterrant, it might possibly:noes: change some of our views on the subject.
OH NO IT WON'T.:lol:
nm!
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Just because it was done in the name of God doesn't not mean He approved of it.
I very much disagree with the death sentence. I've always felt strongly on the issue, but watching "The Life of David Gilmour" a few years back, it definitely became much stronger. It's cruel and unusual punishment, and it's always an ultimate decision. There's always a chance that the wrong man is found guilty and, upon finding evidence to show his innocence, it is already much too late.
I think you mean Gary Gilmore.Quote:
Originally Posted by BioSore
:noes: Brain damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by BioSore
I'd rather we kept Christianity and all religious points of view out of this discussion,seeing as how religion has caused more deaths,wars and suffering than anything else we have invented.
it depends on the crime...
Is that not similar to saying that cars kill people?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
Really, so politics and greed. Stealing other people's land and assets are a minor factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
What exactly was the religious aspect to the first and second world wars.
Or more recently, people keep telling me that the Iraq thing is about oil. Is that not the case now.
People may have used religion as justification for wars, however I very much doubt that it was often the real reason.
Without wishing to get into a name calling match here would it be a fair discussion point to suggest that much of "politics" historically is based on religion. We may not see it today in the same way as the "days of yore" but over years "religion" (not the belief in god) has caused much suffering. It has been used for good as well to be fair but that doesn't cancel out the bad.
However, the quote didn't say all wars and didn't say only wars.
Inquisitions, burning at the stake, torture and execution for heresy or breaking religious laws etc.Quote:
seeing as how religion has caused more deaths,wars and suffering than anything else we have invented.
I agree. As I argued on a different thread, Religion may not be the reason we go to war in the first place, certainly not in modern times, but it is used as a tool. It's stunning how many think we were attacked for no other reason than we are not Muslims.Quote:
People may have used religion as justification for wars, however I very much doubt that it was often the real reason
Religion is a huge factor in civil wars and "ethnic cleansing" though.
It all depends on who's mind the religion resides as to how it's used. People use the same religion as a base for their intolerance that other use to be tolerant.
In the right hands religion can be a good thing, in the wrong hands it's among the most divisive and dangerous things invented.
In summary, religion isn't the problem itself, the problem is how it can and has been wielded as a weapon.
In short, I totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It can be used as just another form of propaganda.
However the root reason for all of the deaths and wars and so forth is greed.
I think the death sentence is fine, I mean hell the world is overpopulated. Whoever voted against the death sentence is a damn liberal democrat. No offense and no name calling, but you know you are. The democrats have taken over the house only because they pull crap out of there ass and make false promises. Dont let them take the presidancy!!
See, wait long enough and the voice of reason appears.Quote:
Originally Posted by viper1405
I think I might be just disagreeing on defining words, however (and this may be argued as being encompassed in "greed"), I would say the root reason was power and the need to control to maintain that power. I see organised religions (being separate from the belief in a god) as having often been used as the tool for control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
http://www.4wd.com/4wdforums/images/...ybaby_sign.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by viper1405
:glag:Quote:
Originally Posted by viper1405
Yes lets keep going in the direction we have been going.:crazy:
What a load of bollox, typical right wing republican bullshit!Quote:
Originally Posted by viper1405
In 2001 Illinois suspended the death penalty after the number of death row inmates released after DNA evidence proved their innocence, was larger than the number executed.
"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Illinois Gov. George Ryan.
This has been repeated all over the US.
Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ava EstelleWhat a load of bollox, typical right wing republican bullshit!Quote:
Originally Posted by viper1405
In 2001 Illinois suspended the death penalty after the number of death row inmates released after DNA evidence proved their innocence, was larger than the number executed.
"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Illinois Gov. George Ryan.
This has been repeated all over the US.
First of all, the fact 18 (not 13) people have been exonerated since 1987 (before DNA was a viable tool for determining guilt or innocence) proves only that the system works...innocent people were not executed.
12 people have been executed since 1976, and nary a question of the propriety of their executions (vis a vis their guilt) has been raised.
Saying "All over the US" is taking just a wee bit of a rhetorical liberty, given the death penalty isn't applied universally.
You should also note Ryan left office in January of '03, commuting all pending death sentences as he did.
He was replaced by Rod Blagojevich.
That should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.
yes for the right crime.
Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP FugleyThat should really be " ...some innocent people were not executed".Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Unless your contention is that innocent people are never murdered by the state. Which I think would be a bold statement indeed.
How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".
What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?
We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...
Here we go, good old j2-kill 'em all and let god sort them out-k4!
The figure for the whole of the US is well over 100 released, and this is only since DNA evidence was available. Seeing as the US, over the years, has executed 1,000's, it doesn't take too much intelligence to see that many would have been innocent. At least with life imprisonment they would have had a chance of release.
I didn't realise there were specific laws in the US against the killing of homosexuals. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Look in your Foreigners Guide to Mis-begotten Mis-perceptions about the United States under the heading of "Hate Crimes", doofus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ava Estelle
Apologies for the mis-spelling.
I'm sure you can count them on one hand, by now.
First, let's make this absolutely clear, if I want to answer ""even once is once too many"." then that is what I'll do, if for no other reason because it's true. Or do you have an actual figure for acceptable casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Which I take to mean you think the state is willy-nilly taking innocent lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
How often do you think this happens, try to answer without trotting out that useless old saw that goes "even once is once too many".
What if we discovered that a murderer was wrongly released, only to subsequently commit a double-homocide?
We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again, which example can surely be demonstrated more often than an innocent being executed...
Secondly, murderers do get released and murder again and innocent people are killed by the State. Both happen, however we are in a position to stop one of them overnight, by the State simply stopping killing people.
"We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again"
So would I, but that's not what we're talking about, now is it.
It is what I was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip MonkFirst, let's make this absolutely clear, if I want to answer ""even once is once too many"." then that is what I'll do, if for no other reason because it's true. Or do you have an actual figure for acceptable casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Secondly, murderers do get released and murder again and innocent people are killed by the State. Both happen, however we are in a position to stop one of them overnight, by the State simply stopping killing people.
"We could play semantic games all day and night, but frankly, I'd rather see someone wrongly detained for several years than another wrongly released for over-crowding or the like, only to murder again and again"
So would I, but that's not what we're talking about, now is it.
As with so many other things, we've been through all of this before.
I really don't have a thing against capital punishment, except that it should be cheaper; perhaps as an energy-saving measure, we could forego the cost of the electricity it takes to fry them, as well as the cost of the fossil-fuel required to make the electricity, and do away with them by giving the biggest, baddest S.O.B. on death row an axe to do the job, and give the smallest, weakest one a mop to clean up afterward. :)
If someone can manage to keep murderers in for life (that is to say, until they die), with no exceptions, I'd go for that, too.
Add a caveat stating a positive DNA test/match marks the absolute end of the appeals process while they're at it.
I really hate posting that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Pardon, what was the (mis-spelled) title of this thread again? :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley