Originally posted by drdonAge is just a physical representation of how long you've been alive. It doesn't dictate how intelligent you are. Besides, you've once again proved your worth. You replied "being older than 19". If that's true, it was a constant. Something you didn't change. I asked what you changed. Or do you not have an answer for that genius?
Being older than 19
Originally posted by zakkwylder"Age is just a physical representation of how long you've been alive. "
Age is just a physical representation of how long you've been alive. It doesn't dictate how intelligent you are. Besides, you've once again proved your worth. You replied "being older than 19". If that's true, it was a constant. Something you didn't change. I asked what you changed. Or do you not have an answer for that genius?
Now there's an insight for you!
Originally posted by drdonNo! You think? You're just full of all kinds of genius tonight. Have you ever considered writing a column for the newspaper. There's an opening at one where I live. Its called The Daily I don't Give A Sh1t. You should send them your work.
"Age is just a physical representation of how long you've been alive. "
Now there's an insight for you!
Originally posted by drdonYour IQ has nothing to do with your age. Being smarter means you learn and assimilate information more rapidly and completely than someone with a lower IQ. It does not, barring extenuating circumstances, change as you age. Once your brain stops growing as a child, you remain at that IQ level for the rest of your life. You can know absolutely nothing but still be brilliant, or be the encyclopedia britannica but still be dumb as a brick.
Being older than 19
Originally posted by KneverKnightif you execute the wrong slime bag the first time keep on trying till you get it right
The wrong man has been executed more than once. I'll let you find that out on your own though.
Also, with a sharp but costly lawyer, the death penalty can sometimes be reduced to jail time, therefore the death penalty discriminates against the poor because the poor get a public defender who might not care and gets paid the same anyways.
the second part of your reply is about lawyers
read my responses about slime bags...they apply to lawyers also
even though they are below the slime bags in the food chain
Originally posted by Bobson 94Speaking from a Canadian point of view:
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
1) SOME IDIOTS UNWITTINGLY ABUSE OTHER USERS ON THE 'NET WITH THIS TORTURE
2) A complex and controversial topic, best saved for the debates forum
We don't have the death penalty nor the high crime rate to need it. I think there should be a pain penalty. For some of the worst crimes (child molestation, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder for a dumb reason and so on) after a conviction, that person should be exposed to ultimate pain. Non-lethal bullets to the arms and legs, advanced toture techniques and such. After that, burn them in disgrace. It is like a death penalty, but much worse.
If that violates human rights, then let me ask you this: how come the suspect has more rights than the vicMFE. Anyone convicted of taking away someone's rights should have theirs taken away, too. If it was the right to live, so be it.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowYep I think black label is still around. I know blatz is (had some recently) The other I don't know.
Blatz ! Damn , thanks for the stroll down memory lane .
Do they still make Black Label , Rhinelander , Red White and Blue , and Hamms up that way ?
What's OP ?
OP Beer.....(other peoples)😉
Originally posted by Whats goin on ehWell...there are various reasons:
If that violates human rights, then let me ask you this: how come the suspect has more rights than the vicMFE. Anyone convicted of taking away someone's rights should have theirs taken away, too. If it was the right to live, so be it.
1. Absolute guilt.
It doesn't exist. You can't prove 100%. So there's always a chance you'll be torturing/killing/maiming an innocent victim. Just look at the statistics of cases of injustice throughout the world. Surely that must scare even you!
2. The moral high ground.
You cannot say it is wrong to hurt someone, whilst you yourself are hurting someone, without being a hypocritical shite. Lead by example. Do unto others what you would have others do unto you. That sort of thing.
3. What sort of profile are you looking for to carry out this plan?
Institutionalised torture, murder? What sort of person would do such a thing??
4. Cause and reaction.
Why only focus on punishment (something which occurs after a deed is done). Surely that's not taking a proper responsibility towards the victim either. Is it not better to focus on the "why" these crimes are committed and attempt to do something about that? Stop them from happening?
Obviously this last one means investing in a social infrastructure; the exact opposite of capitalism's drive for individualisation.
You will note that in Western societies, the more liberal (capitalist and individualistic) the society is, the more violent crimes which occur.
Isn't that interesting? Obviously it's easier to privitise prisons (so that it becomes a financial gain to keep prisoners in longer) than to look at what the real cause of the problems are, but HEY...who cares about victims before they become victims. Right?