|
Post by oslooskar on Aug 18, 2018 10:58:59 GMT -6
Why does it take decades? Sadism! They want to torture the inmates before they kill them. What other reason could they possibly have for killing a sixty year old for crimes he committed when he was was a 22 year old?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Aug 16, 2018 23:28:38 GMT -6
38 years of totally wasted food, clothing, shelter costs and our oxygen. we need to do better. We do need to do better than this because this case isn't about swift justice; it's an exercise in pure sadism.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 19, 2018 2:33:26 GMT -6
Cars actually serve a decent purpose. The death penalty doesn't, and never has - and should have died years ago. If one is to accept such claim of yours to be true he would have to believe that none of the thousands of executed murderers would have ever killed again had they not been executed.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 18, 2018 0:49:20 GMT -6
There is no such thing as a dignified, solemn homicide. Who said there was?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 18, 2018 0:44:58 GMT -6
The whole point of an execution is to deprive the condemned of their lives and thus render the threat they present to society as nonexistent. Oh please. So you're saying the other 99.995 percent of the murderers we spare can be trusted never to kill again? Even if that were true, it's the pros responsible for the dilatory appeals of condemned inmates. If you're really worried about a murderer's recidivism, why are you waiting 30 years to execute him? And where is your moral outrage over a murderer's first victim? Is it the second victim that really counts? And since when do we punish anyone for something s/he might do in the future? Phillips, your commentary is not relevant to anything I've written.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 18:34:20 GMT -6
Yes, pay no attention to the birth year I have given on my profile.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 12:54:01 GMT -6
I think we should kill them in the same way they killed their victims. That's the least we could do. Leaving aside the constitutionality of such practice; we cannot allow murderers to drag society down to their level.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 12:46:11 GMT -6
no they don't need to be solemn, they need to be professional. and they are VERY professionally carried out. I've witnessed one, you? No, never! Back in 1965 I had the opportunity to witness an execution by firing squad of three or four men but I wanted nothing to do with it. However, my roommates at the time made it a point to attend.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jul 16, 2018 12:38:16 GMT -6
This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. Sheer rubbish! You don't need to execute someone in order to do that. The whole point of an execution is to deprive the condemned of their lives and thus render the threat they present to society as nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 20, 2018 17:39:00 GMT -6
why can't I just delete a duplicate post? You can! Look at the icon to the far right of the quote, edit, and thumbs up icons; it will have what appears to be a little gear on it. Click on it and a little box will drop down and you will see a "delete post" option.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 20, 2018 14:24:52 GMT -6
"if death is no big deal, then murder is not such a grave crime after all." Your friend's argument is flawed, of course, because murder and death are not quite the same thing. In fact, death is not a thing, while the act of murdering someone is----not to mention the fact that murder is also a form of theft. Regarding death as a punishment; it's not really a punishment because it is not something that the condemned or anyone else will ever experience. Hence, what you experience during the course of your existence is all you will ever know.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 8, 2018 10:57:59 GMT -6
Probably because of Christianity, murder is not considered a big deal here. Okay, Joseph, I'm NOT a Christian but I'll take the bait. Why is that so?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 7, 2018 2:16:41 GMT -6
Well, I didn't know you were a music lover, Bernardo. So as a special gift for your listening pleasure I offer you some of finest music on earth.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 6, 2018 17:27:37 GMT -6
you ought to be able to specify what you would take as evidence, for you, relative to your own "personal frame of reference" I already did; you just wouldn't accept it.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 6, 2018 14:47:06 GMT -6
you have to say what would count as evidence against it. According to whose personal frame of reference?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 5, 2018 21:00:36 GMT -6
It wasn't a guess. I was laughing at you. Good! I'm glad to see you lighten up a wee bit. I think that you wouldn't accept someone saying they'd heard voices of the dead. You'd dismiss that as lies, or insanity. Most likely. And you wouldn't accept voices if you heard them yourself, you'd take anti-psychotics until they went away. False! I'm not a big fan of taking drugs. And I know as a fact that I would not take them if I heard voices myself. And you wouldn't accept a tape of the dead person's voice. You'd say it was recorded before his death. Or that it was an impersonation. Probably true. So I think that nothing would count as evidence for you. You've declared ex cathedra that the dead don't talk, and no evidence may be permitted to overrule Pope Oscar's bull. Nothing is allowed to count. For all your warbling about "scientific evidence", your view is unfalsifiable and immune to the evidence. It's the paradigm of the anti-scientific. Why...why....how profound! I'm in a state of shock. Yawn....z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z-z-z
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 5, 2018 3:39:57 GMT -6
You mean like a big ball of generic evidence that's really good? Nope, not even close. Keep guessing, this is fun.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 12:03:19 GMT -6
There will never be any evidence to prove or disprove anyhow. Not mean't to be, most likely for very good reasons. Aah, yes, you're right! Why didn't I think of that? Remind me to buy you some Juju beads for Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 11:56:29 GMT -6
You cannot speak for all anti's, what are YOUR reasons Bernard? I repeat. To clarify. Diamonds.......uuuummmm never mind.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 11:49:09 GMT -6
courts do not "prove" anything. Where did I state otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 11:43:49 GMT -6
Give me some specific examples of the kinds of evidence you have in mind. Scientific evidence that is acceptable to scientists.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 3, 2018 23:24:18 GMT -6
Like whatever the court accepts as scientific proof of life after death.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 3, 2018 11:35:33 GMT -6
Not something that needs a court to verify.. Beyond a courts purpose & ability.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 2, 2018 22:01:22 GMT -6
I am trying to figure out what you would take as evidence of an afterlife. Scientific evidence that would standup in a court of law. It seems you would dismiss other people's experiences of talking to the dead as an electrical disturbance going on underneath their yarmulkes. Probably, but there might be exceptions depending on the credibility of the individual. And I bet that, if you yourself started hearing voices, you would suspect you had an electrical disturbance going on underneath your yarmulke. Actually, I wear a beanie with a propeller. But to answer your question, No, I would suspect if I started hearing voices that I might have prowlers on my property.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 2, 2018 16:28:30 GMT -6
If someone else told you that they had had a conversation with someone after they had been declared dead, would you regard that as providing some evidence that there is life after death? It sounds to me like you might have some kind of an electrical disturbance going on underneath your yarmulke, son.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 2, 2018 13:23:45 GMT -6
Nope. I know with absolute certainty because it's been proved to my satisfaction. You're still very confused. You do NOT know as a certainty that there is more; you believe as a certainty that there is. Hence, there is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 1, 2018 13:02:48 GMT -6
I know with certainty there's more. No you do not! The fact that you genuinely believe there is more does not make it a certainty. I don't pretend to know what the more is. But you do pretend to know there is more. In that case I just hope you're not selected for jury duty.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 30, 2018 22:06:26 GMT -6
Even what we cannot see does not mean it does not exist. Or talk to. We have six senses The existence of the wind can be scientifically proven, whereas, Hell and an afterlife cannot. Seriously, superstition is defined as, "A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief."
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 30, 2018 21:46:44 GMT -6
You've never met or had a conversation with my granddaughter either. Following your logic, she doesn't exist either. When was your granddaughter declared legally dead?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 30, 2018 12:26:15 GMT -6
I don't know. On a windy day you can see how the wind has an affect, it's there. Can you see the wind ? No, I can't see the wind but I can feel it and very often hear it. So your point is exactly what?
|
|