Lurker > Sega9599

radical_rhino posted...

Unless youre into asking for dates from your grocery store cashier or other random people you see in your day-to-day life.

This doesn't end well in my experience. You just end up with egg on your face, stay away for 6 months to dispell any fear of 'creeper' vibes, and then pretend like you don't know each other.

As for online apps.....i dunno, i had virtually no response. Perhaps it's because I almost exclusively went for asian women....

The Equalizer Denzel Washington.

Antifar posted...

1 in 25, according to this study.

https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Higher than I'm comfortable with. Even 1 in 100,000 would still be 1, but at least itcwould be somthing to learn from, a thing of the past and yes we do the same in other fields that involve death, before anyone replies.
Therefore reserve it only for cases such as this one we're discussing.

This guy WONT be one of the 25%.
Therefore.....what's the objection?

People don't mind the money, so that's fine
This case isn't innocent, so it's fine

People want to feel superior like they have higher morals or something. They don't really understand the absolute evil some people commit. I'm not going to go into cases, but there are some people who deserve much worse than the death penalty.

Not happy that I used the word 'evil'? An argument of "what is evil or wrong" ensues

hockeybub89 posted...

It is okay to kill active shooters. Self-defense.

Innocent people killed at times. "But only shoot if you're 100% sure they are armed and aggressively shooting first!"

.......

Brilliant.

TheOtherMike posted...

And just like Cocytus, you aren't arguing in good faith, either. Regardless of anyone's fee-fees, there is objectively no benefit to execution. None. Notice how neither you nor anyone else has been able to reconcile the added cost (both financial and societal), nor the inability to release dead people if/when they're exonerated, nor the fact that life in prison serves the same end of protecting society. Several of you are literally trying to argue that execution is preferable to life in prison, ffs. There have been suggestions that we do away with or rush the appeals, which will only lead to sloppier work and more innocent deaths. You people are deflecting, strawmanning, and arguing exclusively from a perspective of vengeance rather than justice.

It's a strawman to ask if if you're against armed police?? How can you not see thr obvious parallel?

Not to mention, you have not given a single reason as to why it's not better to execute when we have 100% proof. Not a single reason besides 'slippery slope, governments will come for you!'

Tell me why it's not better to execute the marathon bomber. Not some other arbitrary case where a person might be innocent. This case.

"Because it costs more money!" Money that people are willing to be spent, therefore it's not wasted. 'It costs more money than the alternative' doesn't hold up if it's what is desired.

"Because it's state sanctioned murder!"
Murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Your very words are a strawman. It is not unlawful. I'm sure your terrible response will be "so it was ok for hitler to kill people by his laws??? That wasn't murder??" Because you fail to understand context.

"Because then you MUST be ok with the state killing innocent people!"
You want to talk strawman? This is the biggest one you have. You couldn't use this as an objectionable defence. "If we execute this person who I admit is 100% guilty, it must mean i am happy to kill people who are 99% guilty!!" No. Just stop.

TheOtherMike posted...

People are stupid. Big shock.

Imagine arguing morality and intelligence, only to present yourself as superior. Pathetic. Do you need pampering that much? You can't say deluded or misguided, no they have to be outright stupid.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I support the existence of a military for self defense & defense of our allies

Oh but they do on occasion kill innocent people! Therefore self defence and defence of our allies is bad!

Compsognathus posted...

Not all costs are financial and in fact the financial cost is far secondary to the cost to society that comes with wrongfully executed individuals.

Boston Bomber is not 'wrongfully convicted'. Therefore he wil not be 'wrongfully executed.'

UnfairRepresent posted...

you're still gay even if you don't have sex

So if God exists then God made you

TC with the bait. He KNOWS you can't blame those born with same sex attraction. Do Christians blame those with strong tempers for being born that way also?

But he feeds feeds feeds. Because as long as people are saying "all religions and all Christians are stupid" then he is given free reign to provoke by everyone.

TheOtherMike posted...

1. Yes we do.
2. When it's impractical to abandon a system entirely, we adjust it to lessen the death of innocents. Just like we can adjust the penal system to life in prison rather than death for capital offenses.

Yes, but people don't want it abandoned. They feel it gives them an intangible benefit. I don't think you understand that. I think that, until you make a genuine effort to understand why people prefer the death penalty instead of defaulting to "they're in favour of innocent people being executed" or "lol because a book told them to", then I think your comments like this:

TheOtherMike posted...

So you're just completely incapable of arguing in good faith. Got it.

Hold no water.

hockeybub89 posted...

Death is a permanent end and this requires an expensive and lengthy process to mitigate the effects human stupidity can have on the process, thus making it more expensive than warehousing inmates.

So we put measures in place to make it better.
What IS the rate of wrongful death penalty conviction anyway? It does happen, but what is it, 1 in every 100,000? And how many of them are actually executed?

We have people arguing from a moral standpoint, that even the worst most guilty criminal never deserves to be executed, but instead deserves life imprisonment. Somehow, if they were killed in a shootout with police, that's 'good' and completely ok as opposed to actual execution.
We have people arguing from an economic standpoint.

Some here have said 'only execute when it's 100% undeniable guilty for heinous crimes.' Were people here willing to meet in the middle and discuss? Because no one is opposed to the premature ending of life in SOME circumstances. Therefore there are grounds to come together and communicate effectively.
Were they willing to at least understand why people feel more content? No, instead they ridiculed them. I've done my fair share too. Perhaps I've proven your point of "two wrongs don't make a right".

That's fine, you can make your arguments. But instead of acting superior, we can accept that it does exist, and you're opposed to it in all its forms.

Compsognathus posted...

As long as you accept that doing so requires an expensive system that executes innocent people to make the worst people dead, then okay.

The potential for innocent people to be killed exists in many systems.
We don't abandon them just because of that.

Compsognathus posted...

No, but the harm of wrongful convictions is lessened if the death penalty ceases,

Oh right. Undeniable.

Tell you what is a far bigger problem, and is unevenly skewed towards race also, armed police officers. If no police officers have guns, the harm of wrongful deaths is lessened. Just give them all tazers instead, but no bullets or lethal weapons at all.
Otherwise you're in favour of the police gunning down innocent black men.
I mean it's that simple really. Do you support the death of innocent children? If you do then just say so , so we know where you stand.

KFHEWUI posted...

The NA version

There is your problem. We Europeans win a round for once

CyricZ posted...

That said shootouts to the folks putting words in our mouths. Clearly you don't need us to respond.

Funkydog posted...

And yes, you HAVE to be okay with an innocent dying if you want a specific guilty person dying

Smh

CyricZ posted...

So we choose who gets death based on an arbitrary set of things we feel are bad enough?

So instead you choose kidnapping and holding against his will for the rest of his natural life? Mental suicide as his rights are restricted? Long prolonged suffering as he acts out and gets solitary confinement? A lonely isolated life followed by a miserable death? That's what you're for?

People talking rubbish here. "State sanctioned murder!! It's wrong if you kill mass murderers, morally you must keep them alive for your own self satisfaction at feeling superior!! Killing killers is hypocritical!!"

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Even though I oppose abortion for the same reason most of you oppose the death penalty, I still think some exceptions can be made.

These guys would say "abortion is natural and healthy if the mother wants it. Unborn fetuses aren't babies or even people. They have no rights. It's state sanctioned freedom for both the mother, and the potential unwanted child. It's the moral thing to do. No exceptions.

But a criminal should never ever be killed. Never. It's immoral and worse than anything the criminal may have ever done themselves.

Compsognathus posted...

The problem is that the only way for the Boston Marathon bomber to be executed for his crimes is through a system that does execute innocent people. So while you might not want to kill innocent people you are actively supporting a system that does.

Yes, and the only way to stop Hitler was to chose the system of war which involved innocent people getting killed.

That's the logic you're employing.

Always with this 'slippery slope' argument. Like, if we're ok with this, then we MUST be ok with the government executing us for daring to disagree with it.

One does not beget the other. If I agree with covid vaccine, it doesn't mean i am for the government enforcing mandatory unknown cocktail of drugs into people. If I eat meat, it doesn't mean I'm for animal cruelty, and if I'm for the death penalty, it doesn't mean I'm for that system to be abused.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Sorry, we don't need to play 'imagine' games. Otherwise, imagine theres a prison break and he escapes to kill more people?

CyricZ posted...

Philosophically, I'd say it's because we are not of the capacity to judge someone as worthy of death as a society.

You mean because we go to war and kill animals, we have no justification?

CyricZ posted...

His murder victims are dead. They don't care.

As for his injured victims, do you think it's fair to compound injury up towards death?

His murdered victims aren't the only victim here. Yes in this instance, victims affected are compounded.

CyricZ posted...

Why should we feel empowered to take away his life?

Why should we ever feel empowered to use lethal force on armed criminals? Why can't we do all we can to capture them instead?

Cookie Bag posted...

Isnt that one of the 3 games along with xenoblade and the last story that were brought to the west? It looked like trash compared lol

All three are pretty good Wii games

pegusus123456 posted...

Nah, you can fuck off with that.

You've fallen for TCs bait. The next step is to say you hate all Christians.

UnfairRepresent posted...

God probably doesn't exist and if God did exist and wanted you to hate people then you are superior to God and God is unworthy of worship. Infact that hateful God would be worthy of derision.

First of all.....

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The real tell is the part about God, which is hostile in tone and is clearly there for the sole purpose of provoking people.

ah. AHHH i thank you for saving an hour of my life from being baited into an TLDR reply for this troll