Discipline

Trigger. Arguing with Syn is impossible, I'd just stop now if I were you.

I would, but this isn't a Syn-only sort of thing. I've met countless people with the exact same opinion he has, and I've never been able to understand their logic.

For those who decide it would be cool to kill someone, I say kill them right back. Why should I pay for a criminal, to have a cushy life in jail, while I am able to just barely pay my bills. Kill the ones who kill, thats my opinion.

Austin just about summed it up.

Trigger wrote:

Jackie Q escapes from prison, then kills and rapes Jenny...

...In that particular order?

Anyway, I digress... The whole reason I brought this up is to prove just how cruel everyone here is. You can go around saying you love each other, but deep inside your hearts you're just senseless murderers.

Austin DID sum it all up... He summed up the thought process of greedy people with money signs in their eyes, who'd sooner kill their own child if it meant they didn't have to pay for the food. That's what you all are. I have yet to see a better argument for murdering someone than the saving money point.

Trigger wrote:

Consider this hypothetical situation.

Jackie Q kills and rapes Suzy. Instead of killing him, they stick him in a penitentiary for the rest of his days. While he's there, the nice taxpayers who AREN'T convicted rapist murderers have to pay to keep him alive. Then, after a year or twenty in the joint, Jackie Q escapes from prison, then kills and rapes Jenny, Chelsea, and Nicole before being captured again.

But really, you cannot put a price on a human life. In this situation, Jenny, Chelsea, and Nicole would have to be victims. I'd sooner see the SMALL chance of Jackie escaping as humane, instead of the execution to prevent it.

But really, can't they come up with some sort of electroshock therapy to perform on these sex offenders, perhaps to make them lose all the feeling and potency in their manhood? I don't know if felons want their manhood to be executed over their own life... But still, our system can work out SOMETHING better than senseless murder.





But, really...

Trigger wrote:

Jackie Q escapes from prison, then kills and rapes Jenny...

In that PARTICULAR order?

Wow, you'd rather keep a murderer alive than a little girl, JUST because the murderer happens to be a human?

Alright Syn, you win. I can't top that logic, or lack thereof.

If I have the choice of keeping a prisonfull of hard crimanals in comfort, or improving the world around me, I will chose the latter. Like I said, if you kil someone in anything BUT self defense, then you deserve to get a taste of your own medicine. Hell, most of the time prison just makes them worse, because of the other PRISONERS. If I send a good man to jail, he will come back bad.

Really though. Putting a very strict death penalty on murder would probably help prevent future murders. Not to mention what has already been mentioned about the murderer not being able to kill anyone else.

Syn's a real asshat. I must say of the many I've seen on this har Internet he's one of the biggest.

First off, a perfect society is different for each person. Eutopian societies are perfect socities and they differ from person to person. Your eutopian society is impractical as it bases off of the idea that every human is humane. We aren't.

What about a man who goes out and kills ten people? Is he still a human by our standards? Is he a man or a beast? I'd say beast, you in your foolishness, would say human. Then again Syn, I'm willing to be you've led a sheltered life.

Since you say you love nobody, how about this one? You're murdered. What would you like done to the man who murdered you? Have him set free so he can dance in a field of flowers and murder who knows how many others? Have him hang about in a prison where he gets three square a day while we have countless numbers of homeless people who haven't actually done anything wrong out there starving?

Your humaneness is flawed, Syn. Sling the stupidity word around some more and make this into a big joke, go ahead. Truth be told, you sir are wrong.

*Stands up and starts clapping*

I think killers should be killed, and that's all I've got to say.

Trigger wrote:

Wow, you'd rather keep a murderer alive than a little girl, JUST because the murderer happens to be a human?

Alright Syn, you win. I can't top that logic, or lack thereof.

There's an extremely small chance he'll escape in the first place and kill a little girl, where as there's a 100% chance of him dying if he were executed. Both are human, and you want neither to die. Of course you would go with the small percent chance when deciding who dies or not.

SettingSun wrote:

Syn's a real asshat. I must say of the many I've seen on this har Internet he's one of the biggest.

First off, a perfect society is different for each person. Eutopian societies are perfect socities and they differ from person to person. Your eutopian society is impractical as it bases off of the idea that every human is humane. We aren't.

What about a man who goes out and kills ten people? Is he still a human by our standards? Is he a man or a beast? I'd say beast, you in your foolishness, would say human. Then again Syn, I'm willing to be you've led a sheltered life.

Since you say you love nobody, how about this one? You're murdered. What would you like done to the man who murdered you? Have him set free so he can dance in a field of flowers and murder who knows how many others? Have him hang about in a prison where he gets three square a day while we have countless numbers of homeless people who haven't actually done anything wrong out there starving?

Your humaneness is flawed, Syn. Sling the stupidity word around some more and make this into a big joke, go ahead. Truth be told, you sir are wrong.

You for sure have the mind of a murderer. What the heck, men are beasts? Is human life one big joke to you? You think just because you haven't led a sheltered life, you can innocently murder human after human and think you're in the right of way? Well then go out and kill tons of people that you claim deserve it. Afterwards YOU'LL be a murderer and today's society can go murder you, because they claim YOU deserve it. And then the next people can murder that murderer, then the next person can murder THOSE murderers, and we'll just let the cycle continue for all eternity. Maybe one day justification can come to all the senseless murders in the form of a scientific discovery that all men are indeed beasts. Then the eternal murdering can go on as innocent in your mind. But you as all murderers still have to wait for that day. Until then, you, and everyone else with your mindset, are murderers, and jerks at that. You can go ahead and make a response about how justified you are already, killing people cause they did something to your girlfriend or something like that. But it won't change anything, because you sir, are a murderer, and YOU sir. Are in the wrong.

Quote :

There's an extremely small chance he'll escape in the first place and kill a little girl, where as there's a 100% chance of him dying if he were executed. Both are human, and you want neither to die. Of course you would go with the small percent chance when deciding who dies or not.

That's the worst justification for keeping a murderer alive that I've ever seen in my entire life. Murderer's live only to... Well, murder. Since you despise murder so much, wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate the source of it? You call killing a killer "murder", and I call it "Nipping the problem in the bud."

By your reasoning, the people that carry out the death sentence become murderers themselves. Personally, I've never heard of an executioner that went rogue because of his job and started murdering innocents randomly. No... Executing a killer does NOT make you a murderer yourself, no more than it does if you're forced to kill someone that has a knife to your throat.

There is no universal standard for who it's alright to kill and not. No two lives are perfectly equal. I know it sounds cruel and unusual, but that's simply how life works. No murderer should be held above someone who isn't.

Quote :

Is human life one big joke to you?

It's certainly a joke to the people you are trying so hard to protect.

Quote :

You think just because you haven't led a sheltered life, you can innocently murder human after human and think you're in the right of way? Well then go out and kill tons of people that you claim deserve it. Afterwards YOU'LL be a murderer and today's society can go murder you, because they claim YOU deserve it. And then the next people can murder that murderer, then the next person can murder THOSE murderers, and we'll just let the cycle continue for all eternity. Maybe one day justification can come to all the senseless murders in the form of a scientific discovery that all men are indeed beasts. Then the eternal murdering can go on as innocent in your mind. But you as all murderers still have to wait for that day. Until then, you, and everyone else with your mindset, are murderers, and jerks at that. You can go ahead and make a response about how justified you are already, killing people cause they did something to your girlfriend or something like that. But it won't change anything, because you sir, are a murderer, and YOU sir. Are in the wrong.

... Did you just pull that out of your ass? It makes no logical sense. At all.

Trigger wrote:

There's an extremely small chance he'll escape in the first place and kill a little girl, where as there's a 100% chance of him dying if he were executed. Both are human, and you want neither to die. Of course you would go with the small percent chance when deciding who dies or not.

Quote :

That's the worst justification for keeping a murderer alive that I've ever seen in my entire life. Murderer's live only to... Well, murder. Since you despise murder so much, wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate the source of it? You call killing a killer "murder", and I call it "Nipping the problem in the bud."

All I was saying is the murderer had a SLIGHT chance of escaping and killing 3 girls, whereas there was a 100% chance of him dying if you were to execute him. I don't want the 3 girls to die any more than I want the murderer to.

It's not justification for keeping a murderer alive. In case you've missed everything I've said so far, the justification is that they're human, even if they are murderers. It was the logical choice. If you were trying to keep 2 people alive, you'd go with the lower percentage. Let's use this hypothetical situation... Let's say you are holding 2 people up over 2 different pits. (This is hypothetical, it doesn't have to make sense) You don't want either of them to die. One pit is filled with spikes, the other is not. You HAVE to drop one of them into a pit... Naturally if you drop someone into the spike pit, theres a much higher chance of them dying than if you drop them into a pit not filled with spikes. So you choose to drop the person over the normal pit.

Quote :

By your reasoning, the people that carry out the death sentence become murderers themselves. Personally, I've never heard of an executioner that went rogue because of his job and started murdering innocents randomly. No... Executing a killer does NOT make you a murderer yourself, no more than it does if you're forced to kill someone that has a knife to your throat.

Of course the people who carry out death sentences are murderers. According to the definition of "murder", it means: "kill intentionally and with premeditation" not "killing someone who I think deserves it" People who carry out death sentences are killing intentionally, therefore it is murder, making them murderers. It's really quite simple to understand. It's not just by MY reasoning... It's the definition of the word. Executing a killer DOES make you a murderer, as you have done it intentionally, fulfilling the description of the word. (Duh.)

Quote :

You think just because you haven't led a sheltered life, you can innocently murder human after human and think you're in the right of way? Well then go out and kill tons of people that you claim deserve it. Afterwards YOU'LL be a murderer and today's society can go murder you, because they claim YOU deserve it. And then the next people can murder that murderer, then the next person can murder THOSE murderers, and we'll just let the cycle continue for all eternity. Maybe one day justification can come to all the senseless murders in the form of a scientific discovery that all men are indeed beasts. Then the eternal murdering can go on as innocent in your mind. But you as all murderers still have to wait for that day. Until then, you, and everyone else with your mindset, are murderers, and jerks at that. You can go ahead and make a response about how justified you are already, killing people cause they did something to your girlfriend or something like that. But it won't change anything, because you sir, are a murderer, and YOU sir. Are in the wrong.

Quote :

... Did you just pull that out of your ass? It makes no logical sense. At all.

You have the worst definition of "logic" that I don't even care what you think is logical or not. You think that exectutioners aren't murderers. Which I proved earlier. You think I make no logical sense by choosing the SLIGHT chance of 3 girls dying over the 100% chance of a murderer dying. Of course it makes sense to go with the lower odds.

And most of all, you think people need to die. Just because they've killed someone themselves, your logic says KILL THEM NOW!!! There is NO reason to kill anyone. As sticking them in jail for their entire life works just as effectively as killing them. You, like nearly everyone that studies law, have the mind of a murderer. To you, murder is the logical thing to do to murderers. To you, murderers aren't humans. Well according to the definition, if you have killed someone, you are a murderer. Therefore they are not human... Even though they are. And that is the way your illogical, murderous mind works.

Syn, your saying that You would want to keep a murderer alive. Someone who, maybe, has killed 10 poeple, maybe even more. 10 innocent poeple, just because he had a bad thought. I would rather a murderer join the ranks of his victims then let 3 poeple even have a slight chance of joining them.

Your hypothetical situation is based on the assumption that you can keep both cages away from the spikes without hurting either. Well, the people in the "innocent" cage are hurt when the people from the "non-innocent" cage escape, or are released from their cages. After that, you're left with scum. On the other hand, you COULD have dropped the scum in the spikes. If you had done that, then you'd be left with good people.

No matter how unlikely it is that someone could escape from prison, the fact remains that bad people escape every day, and even more are released every hour. And as a result, countless people have died.

If your understanding of right and wrong, and what is or isn't justified killing is based upon the little description after the word "murder" in the dictionary, then something is very wrong with you. There is a VERY large difference between someone who kills out of the will to commit evil, and someone who kills out of the will to rectify that evil. Things aren't as simple as you'd like to believe.

My logic is based on certainty. The certainty of a just punishment for an unjust crime.

Your logic is based on hope. The hope that no further evil will occur if you let the problem go unsolved.

You need to re-evaluate your own logic before you mean to question mine.

This situation seems.. Unstable.

L wrote:

This situation seems.. Unstable.

Actually, the situation is really quite sexy.

*Squeezes Syn's nipples*

There we have it folks. The end of the long "Are Insidious Death Sentences Really OK?" argument, hereby reffered to as A.I.D.S.R.OK. I don't have anything further to say that has not been said. As Trigger has said, we have two different kinds of logic, Trigger's is the widely accepted logic and used by almost everyone, and my logic, the refusal to kill someone no matter what the consequences. The murderer logic will probably never allow itself to be taken over by the humane logic, as almost everyone is selfish and would sooner kill another man than let themselves die. I'm done pushing humanity on your minds.

Now what was this thread about? No matter.

*Gets completely nude and rubs on Trigger in a heterosexual way*

SettingSun wrote:

Syn's a real asshat. I must say of the many I've seen on this har Internet he's one of the biggest.

First off, a perfect society is different for each person. Eutopian societies are perfect socities and they differ from person to person. Your eutopian society is impractical as it bases off of the idea that every human is humane. We aren't.

What about a man who goes out and kills ten people? Is he still a human by our standards? Is he a man or a beast? I'd say beast, you in your foolishness, would say human. Then again Syn, I'm willing to be you've led a sheltered life.

Since you say you love nobody, how about this one? You're murdered. What would you like done to the man who murdered you? Have him set free so he can dance in a field of flowers and murder who knows how many others? Have him hang about in a prison where he gets three square a day while we have countless numbers of homeless people who haven't actually done anything wrong out there starving?

Your humaneness is flawed, Syn. Sling the stupidity word around some more and make this into a big joke, go ahead. Truth be told, you sir are wrong.

...Well said.

Synyster Gates wrote:

There we have it folks. The end of the long "Are Insidious Death Sentences Really OK?" argument, hereby reffered to as A.I.D.S.R.OK. I don't have anything further to say that has not been said. As Trigger has said, we have two different kinds of logic, Trigger's is the widely accepted logic and used by almost everyone, and my logic, the refusal to kill someone no matter what the consequences. The murderer logic will probably never allow itself to be taken over by the humane logic, as almost everyone is selfish and would sooner kill another man than let themselves die. I'm done pushing humanity on your minds.

Now what was this thread about? No matter.

*Gets completely nude and rubs on Trigger in a heterosexual way*

So, wanting to kill someone who has murdered your family is selfish, is it? Then I guess humans are selfish bastards.

Actually Austin, It's over. Nothing more needs to be said. But since you and Pengy have both come, I assume you're here for the inappropriate sexual activities.

*Removes Austin and Pengy's clothes and rubs them with a nearby llama*

/me dances inappropriately

/Me doesn't work here!

*Whips Trigger with an inappropriately long whip*

/me does it anyway

/me dances moar erotically with each passing second