Virginia prosecutors want November execution for convicted sniper

[tu_holmes]

Right, wrong, forgive, forget... It's all bullshit.

Either killing a human being is wrong or it's not.

Two wrongs still do not make a right.

[Dos Equis]

You seriously believe that? wow.  Just wow.  talk about spitting in the face of the good book.  You're a disgrace. 

Hey you brought up religion.  The execution of this criminal has nothing to do with the "good book."  It's about punishing someone for a crime.  It sounds like you don't understand the distinction between forgiveness and punishment.  Forgiving someone doesn't mean you don't hold the person accountable for a misdeed.  

Under your analysis, we should just open up the prisons and let people walk, or not even send them to prison in the first place.  Silly.  

[Dos Equis]

Right, wrong, forgive, forget... It's all bullshit.

Either killing a human being is wrong or it's not.

Two wrongs still do not make a right.

It's not that simple.  Murder is wrong.  Killing in self defense isn't "wrong."  Neither is an execution after a trial, conviction, appeal, etc.   

[tu_holmes]

Hey you brought up religion.  The execution of this criminal has nothing to do with the "good book."  It's about punishing someone for a crime.  It sounds like you don't understand the distinction between forgiveness and punishment.  Forgiving someone doesn't mean you don't hold the person accountable for a misdeed. 

Under your analysis, we should just open up the prisons and let people walk, or not even send them to prison in the first place.  Silly. 

Actually, for certain crimes we should let them go... or not put them in there in the first place.

Drug possessions for instance.

It's not that simple.  Murder is wrong.  Killing in self defense isn't "wrong."  Neither is an execution after a trial, conviction, appeal, etc.   

It is that simple. The end result is the same... Dead human being.

You are simply rationalizing the killing portion.

[Dos Equis]

Actually, for certain crimes we should let them go... or not put them in there in the first place.

Drug possessions for instance.

It is that simple. The end result is the same... Dead human being.

You are simply rationalizing the killing portion.

No I'm not.  I'm disagreeing with your view that all killing is wrong.  It isn't, for the reasons I just pointed out. 

[tu_holmes]

No I'm not.  I'm disagreeing with your view that all killing is wrong.  It isn't, for the reasons I just pointed out. 

I'm saying you're rationalizing your warped sense of the value of human life.

Please do go on.

[Dos Equis]

I'm saying you're rationalizing your warped sense of the value of human life.

Please do go on.

That's your opinion.  Doesn't make any sense.  But we're entitled to our opinions. 

[George Whorewell]

Actually, for certain crimes we should let them go... or not put them in there in the first place.

Drug possessions for instance.

It is that simple. The end result is the same... Dead human being.

You are simply rationalizing the killing portion.

No- what you're doing is making a black/white argument out of a complicated topic. There are many grey areas when it comes to criminal justice. Is stealing wrong? What if its to feed you or your family that is starving to death-- then is it ok?

Killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. By your moral equivalence, living to be 100 or committing suicide at 20 is the same thing, because the result is the same= a dead human being.

If I'm understanding your argument, giving a serial killer who raped and murdered children the death penalty is just as heinous as the rape and murder of the children perpatrated by the serial killer. This asinine moral equivalence is precisely why there is a difference between killing and murder. Putting the serial killer to death is killing. The serial killers victims were murdered.

[tu_holmes]

No- what you're doing is making a black/white argument out of a complicated topic. There are many grey areas when it comes to criminal justice. Is stealing wrong? What if its to feed you or your family that is starving to death-- then is it ok?

Killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. By your moral equivalence, living to be 100 or committing suicide at 20 is the same thing, because the result is the same= a dead human being.

If I'm understanding your argument, giving a serial killer who raped and murdered children the death penalty is just as heinous as the rape and murder of the children perpatrated by the serial killer. This asinine moral equivalence is precisely why there is a difference between killing and murder. Putting the serial killer to death is killing. The serial killers victims were murdered.

No because death by natural causes is called living life.

Suicide is actually a crime. So no... They aren't the same. One is "taking a life", the other is not.

I don't see it as complex at all.

Yes, the death penalty is very much a heinous act. How do you put a value on the killing on another person?

Are you saying that human beings should without a doubt be allowed to judge the value of another human being?

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.

[Dos Equis]

No- what you're doing is making a black/white argument out of a complicated topic. There are many grey areas when it comes to criminal justice. Is stealing wrong? What if its to feed you or your family that is starving to death-- then is it ok?

Killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. By your moral equivalence, living to be 100 or committing suicide at 20 is the same thing, because the result is the same= a dead human being.

If I'm understanding your argument, giving a serial killer who raped and murdered children the death penalty is just as heinous as the rape and murder of the children perpatrated by the serial killer. This asinine moral equivalence is precisely why there is a difference between killing and murder. Putting the serial killer to death is killing. The serial killers victims were murdered.

What he said.

[tu_holmes]

What he said.

Okee dokee.

So answer my following questions then.

[Dos Equis]

No because death by natural causes is called living life.

Suicide is actually a crime. So no... They aren't the same. One is "taking a life", the other is not.

I don't see it as complex at all.

Yes, the death penalty is very much a heinous act. How do you put a value on the killing on another person?

Are you saying that human beings should without a doubt be allowed to judge the value of another human being?

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.

Every human life has value.  We all have a "right" to life.  That right can be taken away.

Yes humans should be allowed to determine whether the right to life can be taken away.  There's no other way to do it.  Plus it's in our Constitution:  the government cannot "deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law . . . ."  That's part of the 14th Amendment.  In other words, a person can be deprived of life with "due process of law."      

[tu_holmes]

Every human life has value.  We all have a "right" to life.  That right can be taken away.

Yes humans should be allowed to determine whether the right to life can be taken away.  There's not other way to do it.  Plus it's in our Constitution:  the government cannot "deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law . . . ."  That's part of the 14th Amendment.  In other words, a person can be deprived of life with "due process of law."     

That makes no sense.

They are not mutually exclusive.

An implicit omission is NOT an implicit inclusion.

[Dos Equis]

That makes no sense.

They are not mutually exclusive.

An implicit omission is NOT an implicit inclusion.

O Rly?  Then why is capital punishment legal in this country? 

[tu_holmes]

O Rly?  Then why is capital punishment legal in this country? 

Because it always has been and there are many people who don't hold human life as valuable as I do.

Pretty simple.

[Dos Equis]

Because it always has been and there are many people who don't hold human life as valuable as I do.

Pretty simple.

If it makes no sense that the 14th Amendment permits capital punishment, then it should be illegal in this country.  Right?   

And it hasn't always been legal in this country BTW. 

[tu_holmes]

If it makes no sense that the 14th Amendment permits capital punishment, then it should be illegal in this country.  Right?   

And it hasn't always been legal in this country BTW. 

It is legal because of what I said before... Many people do not hold human life as valuable as I do.

How long was it illegal?

[Dos Equis]

It is legal because of what I said before... Many people do not hold human life as valuable as I do.

How long was it illegal?

Now that makes no sense.  It's legal because the courts say it's legal. 

I'm not sure precisely how long, but I know for certain there was a period of time when the supremes said it was unconstitutional and there were none.   

[tu_holmes]

Now that makes no sense.  It's legal because the courts say it's legal. 

I'm not sure precisely how long, but I know for certain there was a period of time when the supremes said it was unconstitutional and there were none.   

Beach... if people held human life as valuable as I do, there would be no death penalty... That's just simply a fact.

I obviously hold it more valuable than you because you think the death penalty is ok... I do not.

[Skip8282]

Beach... if people held human life as valuable as I do, there would be no death penalty... That's just simply a fact.

I obviously hold it more valuable than you because you think the death penalty is ok... I do not.

I think you've got a point.  I'm against the death penalty (cause it gives me the quivers everytime I hear blah, blah, just got released after spending 30 yrs in jail for a crime he didn't commit).

But, it doesn't bother me a bit that somebody beat Dahmer to death with a broom stick.  I could care less.

[Dos Equis]

Beach... if people held human life as valuable as I do, there would be no death penalty... That's just simply a fact.

I obviously hold it more valuable than you because you think the death penalty is ok... I do not.

I agree that if everyone viewed killing the way you do, there would be no death penalty.

I don't think you view life as any more valuable than me.  We just have different opinions on whether the right to life is conditional.  I think it is.  You don't.  In some states, a majority of the people agree with me.  In others (including Hawaii), they agree with you. 

[tu_holmes]

I agree that if everyone viewed killing the way you do, there would be no death penalty.

I don't think you view life as any more valuable than me.  We just have different opinions on whether the right to life is conditional.  I think it is.  You don't.  In some states, a majority of the people agree with me.  In others (including Hawaii), they agree with you. 

Your own statement is a contradiction.

[Dos Equis]

Your own statement is a contradiction.

How so?

[tu_holmes]

How so?

I'm not going to explain it any more plainly than I already have.

ME believes:

TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE = TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE

YOU believes:

SOME TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE > OTHER TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE

If you ask me again, then you're just being obstinate.

[Dos Equis]

I'm not going to explain it any more plainly than I already have.

ME believes:

TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE = TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE

YOU believes:

SOME TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE > OTHER TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE

If you ask me again, then you're just being obstinate.

So I'm being obstinate?  (I'll need to look that up.)  Doesn't matter.  So long as you don't want to beat me up, like Hugo.   

You are all over the place.  I made the following statement:

"I don't think you view life as any more valuable than me.  We just have different opinions on whether the right to life is conditional.  I think it is.  You don't.  In some states, a majority of the people agree with me.  In others (including Hawaii), they agree with you." 

You responded by saying:

"Your own statement is a contradiction."

What statement is a contradiction?  Saying there is an absolute right to life, but that people can forfeit that right, would be a contradiction.  Saying there is a conditional right to life is not a contradiction.  Not sure what you're talking about.