|
Post by arizonavet on Feb 4, 2011 12:49:47 GMT -6
Have Americans become so soft...so spoiled, that we are no longer willing to die, or kill to protect our people?
Are we not willing to risk our lives in war, because "all life is precious"?
Are we not willing to execute salivating, murderous human beasts because "all life is precious"?
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Feb 4, 2011 20:15:33 GMT -6
Have Americans become so soft...so spoiled, that we are no longer willing to die, or kill to protect our people? Are we not willing to risk our lives in war, because "all life is precious"? Are we not willing to execute salivating, murderous human beasts because "all life is precious"? You are quoting from Amnesty International; not people that know the difference between crime and punishment.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Feb 5, 2011 12:33:24 GMT -6
this what happens after 30 years of every participant getting an award or ribbon. no competition, no winners, no losers
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 5, 2011 16:24:07 GMT -6
Have Americans become so soft...so spoiled, that we are no longer willing to die, or kill to protect our people? Are we not willing to risk our lives in war, because "all life is precious"? Are we not willing to execute salivating, murderous human beasts because "all life is precious"? You are quoting from Amnesty International; not people that know the difference between crime and punishment. or anything else
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Feb 5, 2011 17:48:38 GMT -6
Have Americans become so soft...so spoiled, that we are no longer willing to die, or kill to protect our people? Are we not willing to risk our lives in war, because "all life is precious"? Are we not willing to execute salivating, murderous human beasts because "all life is precious"? You probably have become soft az. You won't endorse the killing of gang bangers, even though they are likely to kill again, because the nature of their crime isn't distasteful enough for you.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 6, 2011 12:55:46 GMT -6
Have Americans become so soft...so spoiled, that we are no longer willing to die, or kill to protect our people? Are we not willing to risk our lives in war, because "all life is precious"? Are we not willing to execute salivating, murderous human beasts because "all life is precious"? You probably have become soft az. You won't endorse the killing of gang bangers, even though they are likely to kill again, because the nature of their crime isn't distasteful enough for you. since the only good gangbanger is a dead gangbanger, why would anyone object? hell, the cops don't all that much. they don't waste any more resources than absolutely necessary investigating the murder of a gangbanger. rightly so, they try to conserve those resources for real people
|
|
|
Post by furoraceltica on Feb 6, 2011 13:11:15 GMT -6
The 'life is sacred ALL killing is wrong' argument can be easily defeated. If all killing is wrong, then we should immediately abolish the armed forces, after all, they kill people. Lets also stop police officers carrying guns, because killing is wrong.
See how this doesn't work?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 6, 2011 13:32:24 GMT -6
The 'life is sacred ALL killing is wrong' argument can be easily defeated. If all killing is wrong, then we should immediately abolish the armed forces, after all, they kill people. Lets also stop police officers carrying guns, because killing is wrong. See how this doesn't work? No such thing as self defense then too in process of a crime against you or others, let them shoot you, do not fight back with same force. That is murder
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Feb 6, 2011 16:10:55 GMT -6
I think it is a question of no longer being shocked by death. As we see more and more images of death, the brain is no longer shocked by the images because it is processing images from its memory bank to rationalize what we are seeing.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Feb 6, 2011 23:46:20 GMT -6
The 'life is sacred ALL killing is wrong' argument can be easily defeated. If all killing is wrong, then we should immediately abolish the armed forces, after all, they kill people. Lets also stop police officers carrying guns, because killing is wrong. See how this doesn't work? Not to mention that we should not be allowed to hunt for food!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 7, 2011 8:50:41 GMT -6
The 'life is sacred ALL killing is wrong' argument can be easily defeated. If all killing is wrong, then we should immediately abolish the armed forces, after all, they kill people. Lets also stop police officers carrying guns, because killing is wrong. See how this doesn't work? no. life IS sacred, and the right to life is sacrosanct. that is the precise reason that death is the only morally proper punishment for murder. everyone has the inalienable right to life, and an individual who chooses to violate that right by murdering another, voluntarily chooses to forfeit his right. obviously, since all rational people know that war, or self defense, or cops killing a worthless piece of shyt, or the state executing a murderer, is NOT murder, there is no similarity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2011 9:42:28 GMT -6
You probably have become soft az. You won't endorse the killing of gang bangers, even though they are likely to kill again, because the nature of their crime isn't distasteful enough for you. since the only good gangbanger is a dead gangbanger, why would anyone object? hell, the cops don't all that much. they don't waste any more resources than absolutely necessary investigating the murder of a gangbanger. rightly so, they try to conserve those resources for real people They shouldn't consider investigating the murder of a gangbanger wasteful. When they don't bother to catch a murderer, there's still a murderer out there. And, perhaps next time they'll kill someone more worthy of investigation, who matters, who didn't have to be a murder victim, had they wasted their time on that other, less important non-real person.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 7, 2011 10:45:51 GMT -6
You probably have become soft az. You won't endorse the killing of gang bangers, even though they are likely to kill again, because the nature of their crime isn't distasteful enough for you. since the only good gangbanger is a dead gangbanger, why would anyone object? hell, the cops don't all that much. they don't waste any more resources than absolutely necessary investigating the murder of a gangbanger. rightly so, they try to conserve those resources for real people One can only hope and pray that your opinion is in the minority.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 7, 2011 10:47:14 GMT -6
The 'life is sacred ALL killing is wrong' argument can be easily defeated. If all killing is wrong, then we should immediately abolish the armed forces, after all, they kill people. Lets also stop police officers carrying guns, because killing is wrong. See how this doesn't work? no. life IS sacred, and the right to life is sacrosanct. that is the precise reason that death is the only morally proper punishment for murder. everyone has the inalienable right to life, and an individual who chooses to violate that right by murdering another, voluntarily chooses to forfeit his right. obviously, since all rational people know that war, or self defense, or cops killing a worthless piece of shyt, or the state executing a murderer, is NOT murder, there is no similarity. You should have added a caveat "unless that person is a gang banger right"? You're contradicting yourself from your earlier post in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 7, 2011 14:35:37 GMT -6
Yes. Have Americans become so soft...so spoiled, that we are no longer willing to die, or kill to protect our people? Are we not willing to risk our lives in war, because "all life is precious"? Are we not willing to execute salivating, murderous human beasts because "all life is precious"?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2011 14:45:51 GMT -6
since the only good gangbanger is a dead gangbanger, why would anyone object? hell, the cops don't all that much. they don't waste any more resources than absolutely necessary investigating the murder of a gangbanger. rightly so, they try to conserve those resources for real people They shouldn't consider investigating the murder of a gangbanger wasteful. When they don't bother to catch a murderer, there's still a murderer out there. And, perhaps next time they'll kill someone more worthy of investigation, who matters, who didn't have to be a murder victim, had they wasted their time on that other, less important non-real person. of course, they do investigate even the murder of a gangbanger. they just don't put all the manpower and resources into it that they do the murder of a real person. that does leave a murderer out there, but, there will always come a time when they will get it, or another gangbanger will. nothing lost either way
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2011 14:48:09 GMT -6
since the only good gangbanger is a dead gangbanger, why would anyone object? hell, the cops don't all that much. they don't waste any more resources than absolutely necessary investigating the murder of a gangbanger. rightly so, they try to conserve those resources for real people One can only hope and pray that your opinion is in the minority. thankfully, i'm not. since EVERY gangbanger, without exception, is a murderer, most people are not fond of murderers.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2011 14:52:05 GMT -6
no. life IS sacred, and the right to life is sacrosanct. that is the precise reason that death is the only morally proper punishment for murder. everyone has the inalienable right to life, and an individual who chooses to violate that right by murdering another, voluntarily chooses to forfeit his right. obviously, since all rational people know that war, or self defense, or cops killing a worthless piece of shyt, or the state executing a murderer, is NOT murder, there is no similarity. You should have added a caveat "unless that person is a gang banger right"? You're contradicting yourself from your earlier post in this thread. not at all. as i said, every gangbanger is a murderer. the simple act of joining a gang makes the individual a murderer, and murderers have voluntarily forfeited their right to life. what is difficult to comprehend about such a simple reality? lest you don't comprehend however, a little lesson in reality. a gang is a criminal conspiracy. each and every member of a criminal conspiracy is guilty of each and every act of that conspiracy. it doesn't matter if they were a hundred miles away at the time of a drive by shooting. they are guilty of the murder, and deserve to die for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 16:28:07 GMT -6
They shouldn't consider investigating the murder of a gangbanger wasteful. When they don't bother to catch a murderer, there's still a murderer out there. And, perhaps next time they'll kill someone more worthy of investigation, who matters, who didn't have to be a murder victim, had they wasted their time on that other, less important non-real person. of course, they do investigate even the murder of a gangbanger. they just don't put all the manpower and resources into it that they do the murder of a real person. that does leave a murderer out there, but, there will always come a time when they will get it, or another gangbanger will. nothing lost either way many years ago when I was single I dated a guy with a gold shield for a while - he was a US Marshall and he worked on gang task force assignments. That was not his attitude. So who specifically do you know that has this lousy attitude of not pursuing murderers of gang members as vigorously as they would other murderers? They stink as law officers. That murderer's next victim may be the innocent bystander in a drive-by or other crime. There is every reason to pursue the gang member just as much as any other murderer - because you don't know who the next victim will be.
|
|