Your feelings on this issue are ideologically based if not religiously based. A religion is just an ideology with some supernatural component.
Cite the part of the constitution that says executions are either cruel or unusual.
They executed people all the time in the years immediately after the constitution was signed. THat means the framers of the constitution did not regard execution as either cruel or unusual.
It refers to torture more than anything... not execution.
End of issue. If you bring up the constitution again, I'm going to ignore you because you're full of shit on that issue.
As to your out of context quotes... you're either terrible at reading or you're intentionally misrepresenting me. I'm assuming the former.
I was making fun of your argument and showing that if I applied your hand wringing logic to everything the entire justice system would fall apart.
Look, if you have a problem with the justice system, that has NOTHING to do with whether a sentence CAN be valid. You're just saying that the justice department often doesn't do its job very well.
OKAY, so advocate for judicial reform. I will be right there with you.
If however you only argue judicial reform as a proxy for the prohibition of execution and you don't actually care about judicial reform... you're a fucking liar that is only bringing up judicial reform as a ploy.
And that is why I made those other comments about imprisonment etc to highlight how disingenuous your position was in the first place.
There is no government that does not assume this authority. Your government... which ever one it is... they are all the same in this... will absolutely kill you if it feels it has "cause" to do so. Maybe you're throwing babies into a bonfire? Maybe you're running around with explosives tied to your body...
You do certain things and your government checks certain boxes on a list. When you've checked the correct number of boxes, they will kill you.
Every government does that.
Our disagreement is not about whether governments have a right to kill their own citizens. Everyone agrees that they do.
The disagreement is rather what are and are not valid reasons to kill your own citizens.
I personally believe that if you've been convicted of multiple first degree murders, than there's no reason to not kill you.
You think its okay for the government to kill you if you walk around with a knife down the middle of the street and shake it at people.
Yet apparently I'm a terrible person and you're a paragon of virtue.
Neither is the case. You're just not a very clever person. You're not a thinker. And this is a complicated issue beyond your reach. Nothing more.
You're right, I conflated all the effective vetos via the senate where given bills were not permitted a to be even voted upon.
So my mistake. However, the point remains that the democrats have a great deal power and pretending that they don't is asinine.
On topic, do you ACTUALLY have any interest in a REAL dialog about ANYTHING or is the basis of your position little more than the typical ad hominem and evasion I have come to expect from people on these topics?
As you saw at the beginning of this post, I admitted my mistake when you pointed it out. That is the least that should be expected of a legitimate participant of a discussion. So I am not asking for you to be impressed. However, I am expecting you to acknowledge that as a gesture of good faith. Were I another of the trolls, I wouldn't ever admit any error no matter how blatant or obvious.
So. Let us start over... you have a complaint or issue you wish to discuss? Let us discuss it like intelligent well adjusted people.:)
As to lowering the standard, not at all. The initial trial is the standard. The year for appeals is a concession made for the sake of argument. I'd be quite happy with terminating them on the following morning after the trial.
I give you 12 months show the initial trial was invalid. I'm not waiting for 10 thousand years or the end of the universe. Requiring infinite appeals is not reasonable.
As I said, anything more than a year is procrastination. You sentenced the fellow. He had a year. It didn't happen.
Execute one year after sentence and the costs are quite reasonable. It is when they span ten years AFTER the conviction with the sentence of DEATH that things get silly.
One year. And that is a gift. A moment beyond that without cause is bullshit.
As to forming your own opinions - nonsense. You're saying you think it is expensive and it is only expensive because they trolled you. You're doing precisely what they want. How is that having your own mind?
As to no robust evidence that capital punishment deters crime, I know the murderers don't want to be executed. That is meaningful. I also don't see the point in keeping them alive.
You keep using this argument that "if X doesn't work we must do Y which also doesn't work". Is there any robust evidence that life sentences deter crime?
If not then your standards are not equal.
You're saying we must do life sentences because executions don't stop them. Well, do life sentences stop them? If not, then your point is moot.
As to executions being more expensive, as I have said repeatedly that is an artifact of the anti execution lobby. They've attempted to ban executions by making the process so painful and ass backwards that it becomes artificially expensive.
That's one of the things that is nice about this execution method. It is cheap and you can't stop it by fucking with the supply chain. The anti execution lobby has been fucking with the execution drug supply chain as a backhanded way of stopping it. Well, here is your result. We'll not use drugs at all do it. Try to frustrate our supply of nitrogen.:D
As to your not especially widely held religious beliefs, I don't see why I need to care. The vast majority of the human race accepts killing other people as a normal part of life. What is more, the state has an implicit right to do this sort of thing. They could not keep authority if they did not.
If you go through a proper court proceeding and find the fellow guilty of a capital crime... then what is the beef here?
As to your repeated citation of the US constitution... you're butchering the logic so badly on that point... and doing so with so little regard for any intellectual integrity that I don't have to respond to that bullshit anymore. I responded once. That point is at best laughable.
As to an invalid court case that was largely regarded at the time to be bullshit... from your own citation: "Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William H. Rehnquist, each appointed by President Richard Nixon, dissented. They argued that capital punishment had always been regarded as appropriate under the Anglo-American legal tradition for serious crimes and that the text of the Constitution implicitly authorized United States death penalty laws because of the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to the taking of "life.""
They're referencing the "due process" clause which refers to the government not taking LIFE, liberty, or property without due cause.
If the government is not permitted to take life regardless then why does this clause says that it can't do so without due process?
And a proper trial is due process. You're wrong.
As to me ignoring your argument, I did read it. I just don't share your little religion. So when you start spouting dogma, I cite it as such and take it for the OPINION it is... and nothing more.
As to rejecting cruel and unusual punishment, of course not. I simply define such differently than you.
What if I define cruel and usual punishment as any kind of imprisonment and then called you a monster for putting people in jail? Sound reasonable? That is how you sound to me. Your attempt to paper over your lack of an argument with feigned outrage merely bores me.
As to your veto power, you have a president in office who literally vetos anything the republicans put through the congress.
As to our plans... be specific. What would you like to talk about. We have a million and one different ideas and I don't really know where to begin.
As to our intentions, are you really so small minded that you think your opposition wants to hurt people? How unbelievably petty.
In any case... you can either get serious and have an adult conversation with me or I'll just go to my default position and treat you like a child. *yawn*
What you support isn't really important. What you'd create ultimately is what concerns me. Take communists. They tend to INTEND to create some classless utopia. In reality what they actually create tends to be a rather run of the mill authoritarian dictatorship.
You say you're an anarchist? Cool. I am a libertarian. We share some similarities and I even like some aspects of your way of thinking.
Where we differ is that absent government control I am worried about two things that you seem to take for granted.
1. The break down of social order. I don't think social order will maintain itself without organization or some authority able to come in and force out of control people to behave themselves.
2. Invasions, warlords, wars, slavers, and various organized thugs that will just come in and overwhelm any society without an organized defense. I believe we need a government primarily for things like that.
Those are the two things the government does that I support. Internal order in the society and protection from outward aggression of any kind.
Absent those two issues I'd prefer if the government had no role in society at all. Nothing beyond police, judges, some body of law, and soldiers. That's it. Everything else left to private concerns or collectives of people to determine on their own.
I'm not an authoritarian and I didn't learn about anarchism from school. I learned it by being a thoughtful person and investigating its nature on my own.
I didn't say taxation was theft. I said if a trial and due process can't legitimize an execution then due process cannot legitimize you taking my money.
Your authority to demand such things is your power as the government. You cannot undermine the system without undermining the system.
They got things done though and it profited the city. The current crop gets nothing done and the city suffers. I'll accept a certain amount of graft from my leaders if they at least get SOMETHING done and ACTUALLY look after the interests of the city. If they do neither then fuck them and fuck anyone that supports the useless shitheads.
We don't need anymore useless shitheads. The world is crammed full of the fucks.
As to your statement that you can know my mind from a few posts... comical. I am real person. I am complex. I am neither lying to you nor contradicting myself nor the monster you would presume me.
Your view of me is simplistic, naive, arrogant, and childish. I am not some cartoon. I am a real person. And you're not going to understand my being from a few posts, you absurd insect.
As to me calling you slimy, I was pointing out that baseless judgements are baseless. I don't think you're slimy or a fish.. I was attempting to explain the absurdity of your attempt to judge something you lack the information to judge.
What is more your pathetic attempt to paper over your weak argument with ad hominem is also disappointing. You seek to label me evil as a means to win your argument rather than simply arguing the point itself. Pathetic.
Try again. This time with SOME integrity... as opposed to none what so ever.
I didn't say anything about authoritarianism. That is your argument. I'm talking about proper legal due process.
Did the Nazis give the Jews they killed fair trials? Yes or no?
Am I an advocate of fair trials? Yes or no?
Okay... so kindly don't suggest I'm a Nazi like some fucking 12 year old that is having their FIRST argument on the internet and doesn't know that Godwin's law is actually a cautionary reminder that comparing people you disagree with to Hitler or nazis is a fucking ignorant and counter productive and childish thing to do.
Now... Try again... this time without suggesting that I'm a nazi just for saying that due process is a relevant factor.
Address MY argument about proper courts. The Nazis for example if they tried jews at all were using an unfair court system or a kangaroo court to convict the jews. If they had used a fair court system and only executed people that were convicted... it is not very likely they would have been able to genocide anyone.
Think about it.
If you have a problem with the US court system, then that is an important issue. Lets talk about that. But that discussion has NOTHING to do with executions. Once your issue with the court system is addressed, I expect that line of argument to be concluded. I also expect whatever standards you want applied to executions to be applied more broadly to the rest of the legal system. If your rules don't cause systemic collapse of the court system through inefficiency then possibly it is sustainable. If it does then obviously your standards are not practical.
The US founders executed people quite freely so saying the constitution forbids it is a little rich. No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general.
So that's just bunk.
As to your notion that you're not a hypocrite because you ideology thinks executions are icky and have cooties, that isn't a defense against a hypocrisy charge. You need to cite some logic here. Saying "but I have beliefs and opinions!" is no defense.
As to limiting my statement, justice systems often don't have limits as to what they can do or rule upon. They limit themselves perhaps within their jurisdiction. But even then sometimes they presume to rule the whole world. It is the nature of justice that it is defined by the power and ambition of the people that wield it.
As to people committing acts in the heat of the moment, then they are second degree murderers and not subject to execution.
We have tiers of murder.
1. Manslaughter: This is where you didn't intend to kill someone and you didn't even intend to hurt them. You just made a mistake. Like killing a pedestrian with your car. Ooops. Manslaughter.
2. Third degree murder: This is where you intend to hurt someone but not kill them. You get into a bar fight and punch some guy... only he dies unexpectedly.
3. Second Degree murder: Here you get caught up in the moment and in a fit of passion try to kill someone on the spot without thinking about it. Say you come in on your wife or husband cheating on you and you decide to kill one of them on the spot.
4. First Degree Murder: Here you methodically and deliberately plan someone else's death. This often involves poison, ambushing people, killing them in their sleep, etc.
Then you have aggravated murders which takes whatever degree the murder was and amps it up a bit. Think of it like a First Degree PLUS murder or a Second Degree PLUS murder. Anyway, this means the murder was especially nasty in some way. Maybe you cut the guy's head off, put it on a spike, and then danced around town with it? Something gross typically.
The people that get executed are the sorts that committed multiple first degree murders and often multiple first degree aggravated murders.
They are not misunderstood snowflakes. They will chew your face off just to hear you scream.
Don't assume you know me. You're can't read my mind right in front me much less through the internet.
As to my logic being robotic... in what way? I could say with the same authority that your logic is fish like because it is slimy and stupid.:D
Make a falsifiable argument so that we can evaluate the value of other people's words.
As to your stab in the dark that I like being ordered around, to the contrary... I have been cited by many people as something of a rebel. I don't like doing what other people tell me to do and I even take some pleasure in doing what I want even if it does break the rules.
I'm a clever person. I'm very good at following the letter of the law but not the spirit when that suits me. Or following the spirit but not the letter when I feel the letter is bullshit. I also am quite good at simply not getting caught.
I'd be someone you'd not want to go evil. Because I'd probably get away with it. Take murder. I am always amazed at how bad so many murderers are in the news. I see what they did and how they got caught and I think "wow, what a bunch of incompetent boobs." I then go over the facts in my head for fun and find out the earliest mistake they appear to have made and rewrite the narrative not get caught.
Do I so much as hurt kittens? No. They're too adorable. I'm a nice guy. I just like a little independence.
Now why did you think someone like me was a big supporter of authoritarian governments? Because I explained what "murder" means which is a mostly legal concept which means the government defines what is and is no murder. It is a fact they define such things. I don't have to take it seriously but hat is what governments do.
As to refurbished batteries, it is all about knowing what you're doing.
I believe what he did was change the battery chemistry. I can get you a link if you like. It appears to restore the batteries. I think they have lower capacity but they operate normally again.
It is apparently a very common thing to do to SLA batteries.
... It didn't. It installed sort of but it didn't work. The firmware was all screwed up and half the features had to be manually tweaked by modifying files using the terminal. Seriously pissed because the only reason I bought the damn thing was because they said it was DD-WRT compatible. Fuckers.
I'm burned on D-link for a good long time because of that.
The only thing I care about is the wire itself. I care nothing for the tv service or the licenses. That's all dying anyway. The cable is all that is relevant. And what I want more than anything is for there to be a competitive environment for last mile ISP service. And for that, we need as much competition in the last mile as possible. I want more cable run... not less.
Yep. That's how sentencing works. Same as with putting people in prison. I don't put someone in prison for what they will be but what they were and are. Same thing.
What if I told you that putting a young man in prison would hurt his career opportunities? That he might have been a famous poet or painter or scientist or politician. But you put him jail for knifing someone and now none of that is going to happen because he's going to spend the better part of his life in jail.
How sorry do you feel about that? That is precisely how sorry I feel about throwing the switch.
You commit multiple first degree murders... you're not a diamond. You're shit. Case closed. Stick your head in this noose and walk off that plank.
So... I think that shows you that I called this perfectly. FM is retrograde. It is on the way out. Mandating that phones have FM reception in that context is goofy and more than a little out of touch with the times.
Nah, the reps have solutions. You just veto them all leaving the reps with two options... your way or nothing.
They choose nothing because they don't believe in your solutions any more than you believe in theirs.
We have no common ground and statements like yours merely underscore the issue. You don't want to find places of compromise and common action. You just want to try and dominate HALF the fucking country and pretend like that is your right.
And yeah, there are people on both sides that do that. They're both assholes. But what is accomplished by pretending like the opposition isn't actually offering solutions? That's just a confession of ignorance at best and a fucking lie at worst.
Which is it? Are you ignorant of the solutions being offered by your political opposition or lying that they don't have any?
Those are the only options. They have them. I can quote them if you like. I rather suspect you know that.
Tell you what, you can honestly come to the table looking for substantive compromise or you can go fuck yourself.:-)
In regards to religious people, prisons predate Christianity. And for the record I'm agnostic.
As to picking diamonds out of the shit, that is the point of the court trial.
If we don't have kangaroo courts then the sentences are valid. If we do then all sentences are suspect.
Choose one.
As to execution trials being expensive, I have addressed this repeatedly. That is an artifact of the anti execution lobby. They've effectively tried to ban executions by making them prohibitively expensive. It is basically legislative trolling. Limit the appeals process to one year after the trial. If you can't find enough evidence to call the initial verdict into question by that point... carry out the sentence.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
That argument cuts both ways. Not just against people seeking redress of grievances but also against those owed their final rewards.
Justice is not just about you getting stuff. Think upon the blind lady. Note that she carries her scales in one hand and her double edged sword in the other. It is a miscarriage of justice to not execute a just sentence as much as it is to execute a false one.
Have the case. See that due process is done. Log the sentence, follow a reasonable process afterwards if you want some appeals to be in place. But the sentence must be carried out in a timely manner. A year of delay is quite generous. More than that is procrastination.
If the appeal process stops at one year because the guilty party is dead... then the costs associated with the process become quite reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Your feelings on this issue are ideologically based if not religiously based. A religion is just an ideology with some supernatural component.
Cite the part of the constitution that says executions are either cruel or unusual.
They executed people all the time in the years immediately after the constitution was signed. THat means the framers of the constitution did not regard execution as either cruel or unusual.
It refers to torture more than anything... not execution.
End of issue. If you bring up the constitution again, I'm going to ignore you because you're full of shit on that issue.
As to your out of context quotes... you're either terrible at reading or you're intentionally misrepresenting me. I'm assuming the former.
I was making fun of your argument and showing that if I applied your hand wringing logic to everything the entire justice system would fall apart.
Look, if you have a problem with the justice system, that has NOTHING to do with whether a sentence CAN be valid. You're just saying that the justice department often doesn't do its job very well.
OKAY, so advocate for judicial reform. I will be right there with you.
If however you only argue judicial reform as a proxy for the prohibition of execution and you don't actually care about judicial reform... you're a fucking liar that is only bringing up judicial reform as a ploy.
And that is why I made those other comments about imprisonment etc to highlight how disingenuous your position was in the first place.
There is no government that does not assume this authority. Your government... which ever one it is... they are all the same in this... will absolutely kill you if it feels it has "cause" to do so. Maybe you're throwing babies into a bonfire? Maybe you're running around with explosives tied to your body...
You do certain things and your government checks certain boxes on a list. When you've checked the correct number of boxes, they will kill you.
Every government does that.
Our disagreement is not about whether governments have a right to kill their own citizens. Everyone agrees that they do.
The disagreement is rather what are and are not valid reasons to kill your own citizens.
I personally believe that if you've been convicted of multiple first degree murders, than there's no reason to not kill you.
You think its okay for the government to kill you if you walk around with a knife down the middle of the street and shake it at people.
Yet apparently I'm a terrible person and you're a paragon of virtue.
Neither is the case. You're just not a very clever person. You're not a thinker. And this is a complicated issue beyond your reach. Nothing more.
You're right, I conflated all the effective vetos via the senate where given bills were not permitted a to be even voted upon.
So my mistake. However, the point remains that the democrats have a great deal power and pretending that they don't is asinine.
On topic, do you ACTUALLY have any interest in a REAL dialog about ANYTHING or is the basis of your position little more than the typical ad hominem and evasion I have come to expect from people on these topics?
As you saw at the beginning of this post, I admitted my mistake when you pointed it out. That is the least that should be expected of a legitimate participant of a discussion. So I am not asking for you to be impressed. However, I am expecting you to acknowledge that as a gesture of good faith. Were I another of the trolls, I wouldn't ever admit any error no matter how blatant or obvious.
So. Let us start over... you have a complaint or issue you wish to discuss? Let us discuss it like intelligent well adjusted people. :)
As to lowering the standard, not at all. The initial trial is the standard. The year for appeals is a concession made for the sake of argument. I'd be quite happy with terminating them on the following morning after the trial.
I give you 12 months show the initial trial was invalid. I'm not waiting for 10 thousand years or the end of the universe. Requiring infinite appeals is not reasonable.
As I said, anything more than a year is procrastination. You sentenced the fellow. He had a year. It didn't happen.
Execute one year after sentence and the costs are quite reasonable. It is when they span ten years AFTER the conviction with the sentence of DEATH that things get silly.
One year. And that is a gift. A moment beyond that without cause is bullshit.
As to forming your own opinions - nonsense. You're saying you think it is expensive and it is only expensive because they trolled you. You're doing precisely what they want. How is that having your own mind?
Skipping past the baseless personal attacks. :)
As to no robust evidence that capital punishment deters crime, I know the murderers don't want to be executed. That is meaningful. I also don't see the point in keeping them alive.
You keep using this argument that "if X doesn't work we must do Y which also doesn't work". Is there any robust evidence that life sentences deter crime?
If not then your standards are not equal.
You're saying we must do life sentences because executions don't stop them. Well, do life sentences stop them? If not, then your point is moot.
As to executions being more expensive, as I have said repeatedly that is an artifact of the anti execution lobby. They've attempted to ban executions by making the process so painful and ass backwards that it becomes artificially expensive.
That's one of the things that is nice about this execution method. It is cheap and you can't stop it by fucking with the supply chain. The anti execution lobby has been fucking with the execution drug supply chain as a backhanded way of stopping it. Well, here is your result. We'll not use drugs at all do it. Try to frustrate our supply of nitrogen. :D
*yawn*
As to your not especially widely held religious beliefs, I don't see why I need to care. The vast majority of the human race accepts killing other people as a normal part of life. What is more, the state has an implicit right to do this sort of thing. They could not keep authority if they did not.
If you go through a proper court proceeding and find the fellow guilty of a capital crime... then what is the beef here?
As to your repeated citation of the US constitution... you're butchering the logic so badly on that point... and doing so with so little regard for any intellectual integrity that I don't have to respond to that bullshit anymore. I responded once. That point is at best laughable.
As to an invalid court case that was largely regarded at the time to be bullshit... from your own citation:
"Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William H. Rehnquist, each appointed by President Richard Nixon, dissented. They argued that capital punishment had always been regarded as appropriate under the Anglo-American legal tradition for serious crimes and that the text of the Constitution implicitly authorized United States death penalty laws because of the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to the taking of "life.""
They're referencing the "due process" clause which refers to the government not taking LIFE, liberty, or property without due cause.
If the government is not permitted to take life regardless then why does this clause says that it can't do so without due process?
And a proper trial is due process. You're wrong.
As to me ignoring your argument, I did read it. I just don't share your little religion. So when you start spouting dogma, I cite it as such and take it for the OPINION it is... and nothing more.
As to rejecting cruel and unusual punishment, of course not. I simply define such differently than you.
What if I define cruel and usual punishment as any kind of imprisonment and then called you a monster for putting people in jail? Sound reasonable? That is how you sound to me. Your attempt to paper over your lack of an argument with feigned outrage merely bores me.
As to your veto power, you have a president in office who literally vetos anything the republicans put through the congress.
As to our plans... be specific. What would you like to talk about. We have a million and one different ideas and I don't really know where to begin.
As to our intentions, are you really so small minded that you think your opposition wants to hurt people? How unbelievably petty.
In any case... you can either get serious and have an adult conversation with me or I'll just go to my default position and treat you like a child. *yawn*
What you support isn't really important. What you'd create ultimately is what concerns me. Take communists. They tend to INTEND to create some classless utopia. In reality what they actually create tends to be a rather run of the mill authoritarian dictatorship.
You say you're an anarchist? Cool. I am a libertarian. We share some similarities and I even like some aspects of your way of thinking.
Where we differ is that absent government control I am worried about two things that you seem to take for granted.
1. The break down of social order. I don't think social order will maintain itself without organization or some authority able to come in and force out of control people to behave themselves.
2. Invasions, warlords, wars, slavers, and various organized thugs that will just come in and overwhelm any society without an organized defense. I believe we need a government primarily for things like that.
Those are the two things the government does that I support. Internal order in the society and protection from outward aggression of any kind.
Absent those two issues I'd prefer if the government had no role in society at all. Nothing beyond police, judges, some body of law, and soldiers. That's it. Everything else left to private concerns or collectives of people to determine on their own.
I'm not an authoritarian and I didn't learn about anarchism from school. I learned it by being a thoughtful person and investigating its nature on my own.
When I do a search sometimes I want a mobile site and sometimes I couldn't care less because I am on a fucking desktop.
Or I'm on a mobile device but really whether the site I am viewing has or doesn't have a mobile site doesn't especially matter to me.
I want to be able to turn that aspect of the search criteria on or off. If I can do that, then I'm fine with this. If not... I'm happy to use Bing.
Anyone used bing lately? They actually do a good job.
I didn't say taxation was theft. I said if a trial and due process can't legitimize an execution then due process cannot legitimize you taking my money.
Your authority to demand such things is your power as the government. You cannot undermine the system without undermining the system.
They got things done though and it profited the city. The current crop gets nothing done and the city suffers. I'll accept a certain amount of graft from my leaders if they at least get SOMETHING done and ACTUALLY look after the interests of the city. If they do neither then fuck them and fuck anyone that supports the useless shitheads.
We don't need anymore useless shitheads. The world is crammed full of the fucks.
As to your statement that you can know my mind from a few posts... comical. I am real person. I am complex. I am neither lying to you nor contradicting myself nor the monster you would presume me.
Your view of me is simplistic, naive, arrogant, and childish. I am not some cartoon. I am a real person. And you're not going to understand my being from a few posts, you absurd insect.
As to me calling you slimy, I was pointing out that baseless judgements are baseless. I don't think you're slimy or a fish.. I was attempting to explain the absurdity of your attempt to judge something you lack the information to judge.
What is more your pathetic attempt to paper over your weak argument with ad hominem is also disappointing. You seek to label me evil as a means to win your argument rather than simply arguing the point itself. Pathetic.
Try again. This time with SOME integrity... as opposed to none what so ever.
Poe's law. ;)
Neither one of us can read sarcasm through the internet, sport.
I didn't say anything about authoritarianism. That is your argument. I'm talking about proper legal due process.
Did the Nazis give the Jews they killed fair trials? Yes or no?
Am I an advocate of fair trials? Yes or no?
Okay... so kindly don't suggest I'm a Nazi like some fucking 12 year old that is having their FIRST argument on the internet and doesn't know that Godwin's law is actually a cautionary reminder that comparing people you disagree with to Hitler or nazis is a fucking ignorant and counter productive and childish thing to do.
Now... Try again... this time without suggesting that I'm a nazi just for saying that due process is a relevant factor.
Address MY argument about proper courts. The Nazis for example if they tried jews at all were using an unfair court system or a kangaroo court to convict the jews. If they had used a fair court system and only executed people that were convicted... it is not very likely they would have been able to genocide anyone.
Think about it.
If you have a problem with the US court system, then that is an important issue. Lets talk about that. But that discussion has NOTHING to do with executions. Once your issue with the court system is addressed, I expect that line of argument to be concluded. I also expect whatever standards you want applied to executions to be applied more broadly to the rest of the legal system. If your rules don't cause systemic collapse of the court system through inefficiency then possibly it is sustainable. If it does then obviously your standards are not practical.
The US founders executed people quite freely so saying the constitution forbids it is a little rich. No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general.
So that's just bunk.
As to your notion that you're not a hypocrite because you ideology thinks executions are icky and have cooties, that isn't a defense against a hypocrisy charge. You need to cite some logic here. Saying "but I have beliefs and opinions!" is no defense.
As to limiting my statement, justice systems often don't have limits as to what they can do or rule upon. They limit themselves perhaps within their jurisdiction. But even then sometimes they presume to rule the whole world. It is the nature of justice that it is defined by the power and ambition of the people that wield it.
As to people committing acts in the heat of the moment, then they are second degree murderers and not subject to execution.
We have tiers of murder.
1. Manslaughter:
This is where you didn't intend to kill someone and you didn't even intend to hurt them. You just made a mistake. Like killing a pedestrian with your car. Ooops. Manslaughter.
2. Third degree murder:
This is where you intend to hurt someone but not kill them. You get into a bar fight and punch some guy... only he dies unexpectedly.
3. Second Degree murder:
Here you get caught up in the moment and in a fit of passion try to kill someone on the spot without thinking about it. Say you come in on your wife or husband cheating on you and you decide to kill one of them on the spot.
4. First Degree Murder:
Here you methodically and deliberately plan someone else's death. This often involves poison, ambushing people, killing them in their sleep, etc.
Then you have aggravated murders which takes whatever degree the murder was and amps it up a bit. Think of it like a First Degree PLUS murder or a Second Degree PLUS murder. Anyway, this means the murder was especially nasty in some way. Maybe you cut the guy's head off, put it on a spike, and then danced around town with it? Something gross typically.
The people that get executed are the sorts that committed multiple first degree murders and often multiple first degree aggravated murders.
They are not misunderstood snowflakes. They will chew your face off just to hear you scream.
Don't assume you know me. You're can't read my mind right in front me much less through the internet.
As to my logic being robotic... in what way? I could say with the same authority that your logic is fish like because it is slimy and stupid. :D
Make a falsifiable argument so that we can evaluate the value of other people's words.
As to your stab in the dark that I like being ordered around, to the contrary... I have been cited by many people as something of a rebel. I don't like doing what other people tell me to do and I even take some pleasure in doing what I want even if it does break the rules.
I'm a clever person. I'm very good at following the letter of the law but not the spirit when that suits me. Or following the spirit but not the letter when I feel the letter is bullshit. I also am quite good at simply not getting caught.
I'd be someone you'd not want to go evil. Because I'd probably get away with it. Take murder. I am always amazed at how bad so many murderers are in the news. I see what they did and how they got caught and I think "wow, what a bunch of incompetent boobs." I then go over the facts in my head for fun and find out the earliest mistake they appear to have made and rewrite the narrative not get caught.
Do I so much as hurt kittens? No. They're too adorable. I'm a nice guy. I just like a little independence.
Now why did you think someone like me was a big supporter of authoritarian governments? Because I explained what "murder" means which is a mostly legal concept which means the government defines what is and is no murder. It is a fact they define such things. I don't have to take it seriously but hat is what governments do.
As to refurbished batteries, it is all about knowing what you're doing.
I believe what he did was change the battery chemistry. I can get you a link if you like. It appears to restore the batteries. I think they have lower capacity but they operate normally again.
It is apparently a very common thing to do to SLA batteries.
... It didn't. It installed sort of but it didn't work. The firmware was all screwed up and half the features had to be manually tweaked by modifying files using the terminal. Seriously pissed because the only reason I bought the damn thing was because they said it was DD-WRT compatible. Fuckers.
I'm burned on D-link for a good long time because of that.
The only thing I care about is the wire itself. I care nothing for the tv service or the licenses. That's all dying anyway. The cable is all that is relevant. And what I want more than anything is for there to be a competitive environment for last mile ISP service. And for that, we need as much competition in the last mile as possible. I want more cable run... not less.
Yep. That's how sentencing works. Same as with putting people in prison. I don't put someone in prison for what they will be but what they were and are. Same thing.
What if I told you that putting a young man in prison would hurt his career opportunities? That he might have been a famous poet or painter or scientist or politician. But you put him jail for knifing someone and now none of that is going to happen because he's going to spend the better part of his life in jail.
How sorry do you feel about that? That is precisely how sorry I feel about throwing the switch.
You commit multiple first degree murders... you're not a diamond. You're shit. Case closed. Stick your head in this noose and walk off that plank.
Next issue.
The words you're using don't mean what you think they mean. ;D
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...
Norway is discontinuing FM transmission entirely.
So... I think that shows you that I called this perfectly. FM is retrograde. It is on the way out. Mandating that phones have FM reception in that context is goofy and more than a little out of touch with the times.
Nah, the reps have solutions. You just veto them all leaving the reps with two options... your way or nothing.
They choose nothing because they don't believe in your solutions any more than you believe in theirs.
We have no common ground and statements like yours merely underscore the issue. You don't want to find places of compromise and common action. You just want to try and dominate HALF the fucking country and pretend like that is your right.
And yeah, there are people on both sides that do that. They're both assholes. But what is accomplished by pretending like the opposition isn't actually offering solutions? That's just a confession of ignorance at best and a fucking lie at worst.
Which is it? Are you ignorant of the solutions being offered by your political opposition or lying that they don't have any?
Those are the only options. They have them. I can quote them if you like. I rather suspect you know that.
Tell you what, you can honestly come to the table looking for substantive compromise or you can go fuck yourself. :-)
In regards to religious people, prisons predate Christianity. And for the record I'm agnostic.
As to picking diamonds out of the shit, that is the point of the court trial.
If we don't have kangaroo courts then the sentences are valid. If we do then all sentences are suspect.
Choose one.
As to execution trials being expensive, I have addressed this repeatedly. That is an artifact of the anti execution lobby. They've effectively tried to ban executions by making them prohibitively expensive. It is basically legislative trolling. Limit the appeals process to one year after the trial. If you can't find enough evidence to call the initial verdict into question by that point... carry out the sentence.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
That argument cuts both ways. Not just against people seeking redress of grievances but also against those owed their final rewards.
Justice is not just about you getting stuff. Think upon the blind lady. Note that she carries her scales in one hand and her double edged sword in the other. It is a miscarriage of justice to not execute a just sentence as much as it is to execute a false one.
Have the case. See that due process is done. Log the sentence, follow a reasonable process afterwards if you want some appeals to be in place. But the sentence must be carried out in a timely manner. A year of delay is quite generous. More than that is procrastination.
If the appeal process stops at one year because the guilty party is dead... then the costs associated with the process become quite reasonable.