Well, since you can't seem to comprehend that other people use the term differently than you, and you refuse to accept the existence of opinions that differ from yours, I'll simply pretend that you don't exist. You bore me.
But it is punishment and a constitutional role of government.
But we're fuckin' talking about a specific punishment: the death penalty. Stop bringing up irrelevant garbage.
All overreach by government is unconstitutional.
False. If someone has a certain opinion, they could believe that the government should not do certain things even if it is technically authorized to do them, and describe these things as overreaches.
What exactly do you think the term excessive means in the context of government?
It's 100% subjective, and depends on individual opinions. Just because you want this all to have One True Meaning doesn't mean it does; it doesn't.
The only way you can construe capitol punishment as big government is to indicate that the government has no role in punishment for the violations of crimes.
False. You can be okay with certain types of punishments but be against the death penalty, which is the most extreme punishment the government can hand out, and you can describe the death penalty as an example of big government. Your problem is that you believe only your interpretation of the term "big government" is correct, so you spew forth garbage such as that.
You are attempting to equate all of one thing with something you appear to not understand, and claim something that is in fact different from reality.
And you're attempting to convince me that only your interpretations of these loaded, subjective terms are correct and relevant.
And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.
Once again, no. Putting people to death is not the same as punishment in general; it is one of, if not the most, extreme forms of punishment.
I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government.
This is garbage. "Big government" is a term often used to refer to government overreact in general, and doesn't necessarily have to do with violations of constitutions.
"Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector.[...]"
Thanks for making my point for me. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Notice how the definitions are loaded with subjective language. There are many uses of this term, and pretending that groups that understand the term differently from you don't exist is simply asinine; it happens whether or not you acknowledge it.
to creates something entirely different then how the term is normally and customarily used.
No need for me to do that.
The problem which I do not think you are seeing here is that the US constitution specifically says the powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution is left to the states and to the people respectively and they cannot use the powers to take the rights of the people away.
What am I not seeing here? You're misconstruing what I say. I say these anti-"big government" people who don't oppose egregious of large government such as the death penalty are irrational, and you come back with all this unnecessary, irrelevant garbage about the constitution, which, while I generally agree, has little to do with this.
If it is wrong for a mother to kill her child outside her womb, then it must be wrong for a mother to kill her child inside her womb.
Not if you believe women's rights are more important than the lives of unwanted 'invaders.'
The Pro-abortion crown always deflect the question into an issue about "Women's rights" because they can't answer the questions I, and many others, have raised.
Wait... huh? You say that people bring up women's rights because they can't answer your questions? I could just as easily say the same about you, but I won't, because it's just nonsense.
the problem is that a fetus is not part of her body.
But it is inside their body, and apparently, some people don't want that, so they get abortions.
Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.
Again, the Argument against big government is not that government doesn't do anything, it is that they are limited to constitutional roles and enforcing punishment given by due process for violations of those laws is definitely constitutional.
Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.
But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.
No, not in the way people who are against big government define their position.
Again, it's not one group. There might be a few people who, for some reason, focus mainly on the federal government (I call them irrational, but not hypocrites or liars), but that is not who I am referring to here.
Face it, you are wrong in this.
No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.
But I believe that the people who focus almost solely on the federal government when saying they oppose "big government" are irrational. Moral abuse of power is very serious no matter if it's the local, state, or federal government doing it, and that applies even if it's legal/constitutional. I think they need to get with the program and start opposing all big government.
Terrifying someone's mind into complying with interrogation is orders of magnitude better than, say, ripping out fingernails, branding with hot irons, or other things that permanently damage and cripple the subject, don't you think?
"Doing X is better than doing Y" is not a justification for doing X.
"well, the system can't be perfect so we won't punish anyone".
No one makes that argument. Some mistakes can be fixed. Some mistakes can't be fixed, but the victims of the mistakes can at least lead a happy life afterwards. Not only can the death penalty not be fixed, but people who are forced to undergo it are simply dead; no chance of recovery and no chance of living any life afterwards.
Me? I just don't want government thugs in the business of killing prisoners.
5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution.
Usually a response to someone arguing that we should use the death penalty to save money.
How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.
Abortion is unique in the sense that the woman is carrying the child in her body. You can basically either support the woman's right to do what she wants with her body, or say that the child's life is more important than the woman's right to choose.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the government killing prisoners, as they aren't even involved at all. Trying to equate abortion with the death penalty is unbelievably silly.
Are you really trying to protect the innocent in all cases?
If the prisoners were basically invaders in someone else's body, then I'd fully support someone's right to get rid of them (exercising control over their own body) in those cases.
the victims of released murderers and child molesters would disagree
The victims of released murderers and child molesters can think whatever they want; it is crucial that we do not allow our government to become the criminal.
I suppose if you tolerate a high level of revenge killing and feuding, you don't really care.
Again, "People will do bad things if we don't do unjust thing X." is not a very good reason to do something unjust, or at least to me.
But if you do, then either the state performs what the public considers to be justice or the public starts taking matters into its own hands.
Will it? Because people are already fed up with governments in many ways, yet they don't do anything. I seriously doubt this is true; most people are apathetic imbeciles to begin with.
The argument against big government isn't government does nothing.
I didn't say it was, but I can't think of a bigger sign of "big government" than having that same incompetent government murder people.
It is that government sticks to their constitutional roles and the bulk of the power needs to be concentrated with the state and local governments where they are more responsive to the people.
Big government is big government whether or not it's at the local, state, or federal level.
Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying.
Maybe if you're irrational, but it is indeed big government.
And... plenty of countries have already banned the death penalty. If you are to be believed, they should be filled with vigilantes, but they're not. So, in addition to being a very poor reason to allow the government to do something, it doesn't even seem to be true in reality.
Because if it isn't, then people start taking matters into their own hands.
Therefore... we should appease them? That sounds nice. You could try to justify the government committing any injustice by saying that angry mobs will form if they don't.
Freedom is the issue here. Even if the security works, people's freedoms must not be violated.
How many armed robberies occur in police stations?
How many 9/11-scale attacks occurred before 9/11--and since we're talking about the TSA--in the US? Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack have always been infinitesimal.
Might you be one of those people that is baffled and troubled by increased incarceration rates while crime is falling?
Might you be one of those people who confuse correlation with causation?
Proper security measures increase the risk of failure and detection for terrorists.
And you assume the TSA is relevant here, or are you speaking of proper security measures like securing cockpit doors, which violate no one's rights?
Which actual right, as defined in law as interpreted by the courts, is being violated?
I'm not interesting in what your precious thugs have to say, bootlicker. From slavery to the internment of people of Japanese descent, the US government alone (as well as every other government) has committed many atrocities. Laws can be wrong. Interpretations can be wrong.
As for what's being violated, it's the fourth amendment, as well as privacy.
Absolutely nothing is a violate of people's freedoms to you if the government says it isn't. Do you even have a mind of your own?
Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt.
No, it doesn't.
When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level.
Are they, now? They don't distinguish between the two, and frankly, such a distinction is pointless. Big government is big government; it doesn't matter whether it's federal or state government.
So while people who only claim to want a small federal government and nothing else might not be outright hypocrites for supporting the death penalty, they're still completely irrational. Giving that kind of power to government thugs (any of them) does not a small government make.
Yes, they do. It is an example of big government whether or not they have the consent of the people.
The actual execution, yes, because you don't want that handed directly to the people (we have a word for that: vigilante justice, and historically it doesn't work out so well).
So you even partially admit it, then.
Again, people who claim to want small government and support the death penalty are simply liars.
Most people who yell about "big gubmint" have no problem with a government that follows the rules and limitations established in the respective constitutions
Whether or not they follow the rules, laws, and constitutions has nothing to do with whether it's an example of big government. Laws, rules, and even parts of the constitution can be wrong. I can't think of many better examples of "big government" than the death penalty.
Everyone I know of who favors small government acknowledges that. "Small" doesn't necessarily mean "non-existent."
"Small" also doesn't mean "having the power to murder imprisoned people"; that's "huge."
The state doesn't get to this point lightly or without cause.
Again, what's your point? Read the post you replied to. He basically said that those who claim to want small government probably shouldn't support the death penalty, and for obvious reasons.
And even though you say they don't get to this point lightly or without cause, many innocents have been murdered at the hands of government thugs thanks to the existence of the death penalty.
You do realize that the two subjects are only tied together in your puny little brain?
No. It is still the government carrying out the execution. People who actually want small government don't believe the government should have such a power to begin with, even if they have the 'consent' of the people.
Indeed it is. We probably shouldn't become like them. And, well... I really don't want to give incompetent government thugs the power to murder prisoners; something about that just seems wrong.
And that changes things... how? The government still carries out the whole thing. If you claim to want small government but support the death penalty, you're nothing but a liar.
Vengeance seems to be a top priority for some reason. And as someone else pointed out, it's hypocritical how some who claim to want small government also say that the government should have the power to murder people who've already been imprisoned; I can't think of a much bigger sign of "big government" than that.
I'd prefer it if they spied on countries that are actively hostile towards us, if they're going to spy at all. No, spying to collect evidence is not okay (or else spying on citizens would also be okay).
This apologist nonsense is not surprising, but it is an absolute eyesore.
No one with a brain is surprised. Government thugs are acting like government thugs by using their powers in ways that they shouldn't; what else is new? Semi-intelligent people may not be surprised, but they are (and have been) angry, and justifiably so.
Why, because he'd probably prefer to take the 0.0000000001% chance that a bomb would go off on a plane (most likely with or without the TSA) while he's on it than have everyone's freedoms be violated by slimy, worthless government thugs?
The injustice is bombs on planes.
But violating people's rights in an effort to keep people safe isn't an injustice?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since you can't seem to comprehend that other people use the term differently than you, and you refuse to accept the existence of opinions that differ from yours, I'll simply pretend that you don't exist. You bore me.
And here lays you problem. It is not subjective.
It is.
But it is punishment and a constitutional role of government.
But we're fuckin' talking about a specific punishment: the death penalty. Stop bringing up irrelevant garbage.
All overreach by government is unconstitutional.
False. If someone has a certain opinion, they could believe that the government should not do certain things even if it is technically authorized to do them, and describe these things as overreaches.
What exactly do you think the term excessive means in the context of government?
It's 100% subjective, and depends on individual opinions. Just because you want this all to have One True Meaning doesn't mean it does; it doesn't.
The only way you can construe capitol punishment as big government is to indicate that the government has no role in punishment for the violations of crimes.
False. You can be okay with certain types of punishments but be against the death penalty, which is the most extreme punishment the government can hand out, and you can describe the death penalty as an example of big government. Your problem is that you believe only your interpretation of the term "big government" is correct, so you spew forth garbage such as that.
You are attempting to equate all of one thing with something you appear to not understand, and claim something that is in fact different from reality.
And you're attempting to convince me that only your interpretations of these loaded, subjective terms are correct and relevant.
it cannot be big government
It can.
And what are you, some sort of fuckin' fucker cheeks patty? What is this absolute eyesore of a comment you've constructed!? Begone, I say!
And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.
Once again, no. Putting people to death is not the same as punishment in general; it is one of, if not the most, extreme forms of punishment.
I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government.
This is garbage. "Big government" is a term often used to refer to government overreact in general, and doesn't necessarily have to do with violations of constitutions.
"Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector.[...]"
Thanks for making my point for me. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Notice how the definitions are loaded with subjective language. There are many uses of this term, and pretending that groups that understand the term differently from you don't exist is simply asinine; it happens whether or not you acknowledge it.
to creates something entirely different then how the term is normally and customarily used.
No need for me to do that.
The problem which I do not think you are seeing here is that the US constitution specifically says the powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution is left to the states and to the people respectively and they cannot use the powers to take the rights of the people away.
What am I not seeing here? You're misconstruing what I say. I say these anti-"big government" people who don't oppose egregious of large government such as the death penalty are irrational, and you come back with all this unnecessary, irrelevant garbage about the constitution, which, while I generally agree, has little to do with this.
If it is wrong for a mother to kill her child outside her womb, then it must be wrong for a mother to kill her child inside her womb.
Not if you believe women's rights are more important than the lives of unwanted 'invaders.'
The Pro-abortion crown always deflect the question into an issue about "Women's rights" because they can't answer the questions I, and many others, have raised.
Wait... huh? You say that people bring up women's rights because they can't answer your questions? I could just as easily say the same about you, but I won't, because it's just nonsense.
the problem is that a fetus is not part of her body.
But it is inside their body, and apparently, some people don't want that, so they get abortions.
I wonder how you will respond.
Looks like it was already done, more or less.
But you implied it
Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.
Again, the Argument against big government is not that government doesn't do anything, it is that they are limited to constitutional roles and enforcing punishment given by due process for violations of those laws is definitely constitutional.
Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.
But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.
No, not in the way people who are against big government define their position.
Again, it's not one group. There might be a few people who, for some reason, focus mainly on the federal government (I call them irrational, but not hypocrites or liars), but that is not who I am referring to here.
Face it, you are wrong in this.
No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.
But I believe that the people who focus almost solely on the federal government when saying they oppose "big government" are irrational. Moral abuse of power is very serious no matter if it's the local, state, or federal government doing it, and that applies even if it's legal/constitutional. I think they need to get with the program and start opposing all big government.
Terrifying someone's mind into complying with interrogation is orders of magnitude better than, say, ripping out fingernails, branding with hot irons, or other things that permanently damage and cripple the subject, don't you think?
"Doing X is better than doing Y" is not a justification for doing X.
Well, those people didn't think it was just.
Irrelevant to me, and irrelevant to my point.
Actually, they [wikipedia.org] often [wikipedia.org] do [wikipedia.org].
Often? You point to a few cases and conclude that it happens often? That's not going to work.
"well, the system can't be perfect so we won't punish anyone".
No one makes that argument. Some mistakes can be fixed. Some mistakes can't be fixed, but the victims of the mistakes can at least lead a happy life afterwards. Not only can the death penalty not be fixed, but people who are forced to undergo it are simply dead; no chance of recovery and no chance of living any life afterwards.
Me? I just don't want government thugs in the business of killing prisoners.
5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution.
Usually a response to someone arguing that we should use the death penalty to save money.
How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.
Abortion is unique in the sense that the woman is carrying the child in her body. You can basically either support the woman's right to do what she wants with her body, or say that the child's life is more important than the woman's right to choose.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the government killing prisoners, as they aren't even involved at all. Trying to equate abortion with the death penalty is unbelievably silly.
Are you really trying to protect the innocent in all cases?
If the prisoners were basically invaders in someone else's body, then I'd fully support someone's right to get rid of them (exercising control over their own body) in those cases.
the victims of released murderers and child molesters would disagree
The victims of released murderers and child molesters can think whatever they want; it is crucial that we do not allow our government to become the criminal.
I suppose if you tolerate a high level of revenge killing and feuding, you don't really care.
Again, "People will do bad things if we don't do unjust thing X." is not a very good reason to do something unjust, or at least to me.
But if you do, then either the state performs what the public considers to be justice or the public starts taking matters into its own hands.
Will it? Because people are already fed up with governments in many ways, yet they don't do anything. I seriously doubt this is true; most people are apathetic imbeciles to begin with.
The argument against big government isn't government does nothing.
I didn't say it was, but I can't think of a bigger sign of "big government" than having that same incompetent government murder people.
It is that government sticks to their constitutional roles and the bulk of the power needs to be concentrated with the state and local governments where they are more responsive to the people.
Big government is big government whether or not it's at the local, state, or federal level.
Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying.
Maybe if you're irrational, but it is indeed big government.
the only reason you should be objecting to execution is the very real possibility that the person executed was not actually guilty of the crime.
I actually believe the death penalty would be wrong even if we could be 100% certain that someone is guilty.
And... plenty of countries have already banned the death penalty. If you are to be believed, they should be filled with vigilantes, but they're not. So, in addition to being a very poor reason to allow the government to do something, it doesn't even seem to be true in reality.
Because if it isn't, then people start taking matters into their own hands.
Therefore... we should appease them? That sounds nice. You could try to justify the government committing any injustice by saying that angry mobs will form if they don't.
Not an argument for the death penalty.
Freedom is the issue here. Even if the security works, people's freedoms must not be violated.
How many armed robberies occur in police stations?
How many 9/11-scale attacks occurred before 9/11--and since we're talking about the TSA--in the US? Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack have always been infinitesimal.
Might you be one of those people that is baffled and troubled by increased incarceration rates while crime is falling?
Might you be one of those people who confuse correlation with causation?
Proper security measures increase the risk of failure and detection for terrorists.
And you assume the TSA is relevant here, or are you speaking of proper security measures like securing cockpit doors, which violate no one's rights?
Which actual right, as defined in law as interpreted by the courts, is being violated?
I'm not interesting in what your precious thugs have to say, bootlicker. From slavery to the internment of people of Japanese descent, the US government alone (as well as every other government) has committed many atrocities. Laws can be wrong. Interpretations can be wrong.
As for what's being violated, it's the fourth amendment, as well as privacy.
Absolutely nothing is a violate of people's freedoms to you if the government says it isn't. Do you even have a mind of your own?
Your statement seems to lead that there is only one govt.
No, it doesn't.
When people complain about Big Government, they are talking about the federal level.
Are they, now? They don't distinguish between the two, and frankly, such a distinction is pointless. Big government is big government; it doesn't matter whether it's federal or state government.
So while people who only claim to want a small federal government and nothing else might not be outright hypocrites for supporting the death penalty, they're still completely irrational. Giving that kind of power to government thugs (any of them) does not a small government make.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. It is an example of big government whether or not they have the consent of the people.
The actual execution, yes, because you don't want that handed directly to the people (we have a word for that: vigilante justice, and historically it doesn't work out so well).
So you even partially admit it, then.
Again, people who claim to want small government and support the death penalty are simply liars.
Most people who yell about "big gubmint" have no problem with a government that follows the rules and limitations established in the respective constitutions
Whether or not they follow the rules, laws, and constitutions has nothing to do with whether it's an example of big government. Laws, rules, and even parts of the constitution can be wrong. I can't think of many better examples of "big government" than the death penalty.
Everyone I know of who favors small government acknowledges that. "Small" doesn't necessarily mean "non-existent."
"Small" also doesn't mean "having the power to murder imprisoned people"; that's "huge."
The state doesn't get to this point lightly or without cause.
Again, what's your point? Read the post you replied to. He basically said that those who claim to want small government probably shouldn't support the death penalty, and for obvious reasons.
And even though you say they don't get to this point lightly or without cause, many innocents have been murdered at the hands of government thugs thanks to the existence of the death penalty.
You do realize that the two subjects are only tied together in your puny little brain?
No. It is still the government carrying out the execution. People who actually want small government don't believe the government should have such a power to begin with, even if they have the 'consent' of the people.
that is barbaric.
Indeed it is. We probably shouldn't become like them. And, well... I really don't want to give incompetent government thugs the power to murder prisoners; something about that just seems wrong.
And that changes things... how? The government still carries out the whole thing. If you claim to want small government but support the death penalty, you're nothing but a liar.
Vengeance seems to be a top priority for some reason. And as someone else pointed out, it's hypocritical how some who claim to want small government also say that the government should have the power to murder people who've already been imprisoned; I can't think of a much bigger sign of "big government" than that.
The NSA is suppose to spy on other countries.
I'd prefer it if they spied on countries that are actively hostile towards us, if they're going to spy at all. No, spying to collect evidence is not okay (or else spying on citizens would also be okay).
This apologist nonsense is not surprising, but it is an absolute eyesore.
No one with a brain is surprised. Government thugs are acting like government thugs by using their powers in ways that they shouldn't; what else is new? Semi-intelligent people may not be surprised, but they are (and have been) angry, and justifiably so.
You have a suicidal mentality.
Why, because he'd probably prefer to take the 0.0000000001% chance that a bomb would go off on a plane (most likely with or without the TSA) while he's on it than have everyone's freedoms be violated by slimy, worthless government thugs?
The injustice is bombs on planes.
But violating people's rights in an effort to keep people safe isn't an injustice?