Capital punishment

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, the fox said:

so, it's ok to kill mass murderers and terrorists but not the ones who rape and kill kids? if a guy blows up 20 people, i can't imagine that he will get 10-15 years in prison. you kill all the filth or you let them all live, there is no picking and choosing here.

What are you talking about? You’ve lost the plot in here mate, you really have.

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

so come on then - enlighten us all on how your stance on killing child rapists has helped to reduce the number of abuse cases?

 

that's exactly what you've claimed in your post above - I'd love to know how. 

No! Not child rapists but child rapists and killers (as in raping than killing a child or vice versa)
 

 

And give me the proof that not killing those people helped the numbers to stay down (and give me a big sample size). and don't give me all the "deterrent" talk and how the inmates are more afraid of life in prison. they won't say "yeah, i guess death is better than life in prison" would they?

 

what i see is, there are two kinds of filth, The ones who are ok with spending life in prison and the ones who don't care if they live or die. as for the latter, they don't matter because both are the same for them. but what about the people who are afraid to die? let's say a small percent of them won't do it because they don't want to die, wouldn't that stop them?

[lifted*fox]

9 minutes ago, the fox said:

so, it's ok to kill mass murderers and terrorists but not the ones who rape and kill kids? if a guy blows up 20 people, i can't imagine that he will get 10-15 years in prison. you kill all the filth or you let them all live, there is no picking and choosing here.

 

you're completely missing the point now.

 

he's saying that if you were to see someone heading towards an event with what you are 95% certain is a bomb on their back and you have an opportunity to take them out in the car park with a well-placed shot then that is preventative. with enough reason and intelligence to believe that is what is going to happen then taking them out is acceptable to prevent loss of life.

 

murdering the same person after they have bombed the event (should they survive) is unacceptable in modern society because it doesn't bring anyone back, it doesn't change anything, it doesn't give the victims any relief (no matter how much you'd like to think it would) and it isn't conducive to living in a forward-thinking world. it drags you down to their level. 

 

we have already made the decision in this country to let the filth rot in prison and that is how it should stay.

 

not going back to the dark ages where we string child molesters up in the city centre so angry little men like yourself can go and take out whatever pent up aggression you've got on them. it wouldn't help anyone, at all.

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What are you talking about? You’ve lost the plot in here mate, you really have.

Can you get that point across pls, mate. Because things might have got lost in translation.

[the fox]

7 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

you're completely missing the point now.

 

he's saying that if you were to see someone heading towards an event with what you are 95% certain is a bomb on their back and you have an opportunity to take them out in the car park with a well-placed shot then that is preventative. with enough reason and intelligence to believe that is what is going to happen then taking them out is acceptable to prevent loss of life.

 

murdering the same person after they have bombed the event (should they survive) is unacceptable in modern society because it doesn't bring anyone back, it doesn't change anything, it doesn't give the victims any relief (no matter how much you'd like to think it would) and it isn't conducive to living in a forward-thinking world. it drags you down to their level. 

 

we have already made the decision in this country to let the filth rot in prison and that is how it should stay.

 

not going back to the dark ages where we string child molesters up in the city centre so angry little men like yourself can go and take out whatever pent up aggression you've got on them. it wouldn't help anyone, at all.

You kept using insults directed at me and i kept letting it slide time and time again but that did nothing but encourage you to go even farther in your buffoonery. 

 

Next time don't say "the mods are bullying me". Because that's why!

Edited 26 February 2018 by the fox

[lifted*fox]

Just now, the fox said:

You kept using insults directed at me and i kept letting it slide time and time again but that did nothing but encourage you to go even farther in your buffoonery. 

 

Next time don't say "the mods are bullieng me". Because that's why!

 

lol, come off it mate - just a couple of posts ago you suggested I was part of the problem regarding child molestation because I refuse to support killing offenders.

 

any chance we had of an amicable discussion finally went out of the window with that baseless accusation.

 

you've been told by people other than me that you've lost the plot in here - you'd do well to just leave it at that.  

[Manwell Pablo]

44 minutes ago, the fox said:

And who said that? The people who got life in prison? Well of course they say thAT they're more afraid of a life sentence because that will fool the court in thinking that it's the best option. they won't say "death is better" would they?. But there are people who don't care about life so who knows? plus, dead people can't give interviews and statements, can they?

 

I already said that we don't have the death sentence but many are calling for it (mainly for child rapists and killers)
i saw a women on TV that was crying her eyes out after the authorities found her little child in a bag cut to pieces after being raped.
I'm not calling for every criminal to be excuted, i'm talking about those pieces of shite who rape and kill little kids. do people not understand!

 

It's a conclusion you can draw from statistics (a well know conclusion) if you look at countries that do have the death penalty and those that do not, there is no statistical difference in crime rate, therefore it is no more of a deterrent. 

 

Yes I don't think you've made your point unclear.

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

lol, come off it mate - just a couple of posts ago you suggested I was part of the problem regarding child molestation because I refuse to support killing offenders.

 

any chance we had of an amicable discussion finally went out of the window with that baseless accusation.

 

you've been told by people other than me that you've lost the plot in here - you'd do well to just leave it at that.  

I don't (not once) direct an insult at you as a person, I didn't suggest that you're a maniac, unfit to make decisions nor did i call you an insecure little man (everyone knows what that means) with anger problems.

You act holier-than-thou and your shit doesn't smell but you couldn't stop yourself from passing those ill intentioned digs in your post which is a shame because i agreed with you on killing a person if they are in the middle of doing a those crime

[the fox]

1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

It's a conclusion you can draw from statistics (a well know conclusion) if you look at countries that do have the death penalty and those that do not, there is no statistical difference in crime rate, therefore it is no more of a deterrent. 

 

Yes I don't think you've made your point unclear.

You may think that different places have a different ratio of psychos. you can't just say that "This country'" have "This amount of child killers" compared to a more civilised country if you don't consider their life choices and the way they think. Maybe their lifestyle and mentality is what propels them in doing such things no matter the consequence

[lifted*fox]

you've worked yourself up into a frenzy about killing child rapists with little thought for the reasons as to why we don't already kill them. 

 

and to suggest that I'm part of the problem because I don't think we should just be running about sending every person accused of child molestation to their death - well... you might not have called me any names but it's pretty offensive in itself tbh. 

 

i called you an angry little man, because you come across as an angry little man.

 

it's as simple as that - no hidden meaning, no sly dig. it is what it is. you've done little to disprove it in this thread. 

 

 

 

[the fox]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

you've worked yourself up into a frenzy about killing child rapists with little thought for the reasons as to why we don't already kill them. 

 

and to suggest that I'm part of the problem because I don't think we should just be running about sending every person accused of child molestation to their death - well... you might not have called me any names but it's pretty offensive in itself tbh. 

 

i called you an angry little man, because you come across as an angry little man.

 

it's as simple as that - no hidden meaning, no sly dig. it is what it is. you've done little to disprove it in this thread. 

 

 

 

For the last damn time, it's not "child rapist" and not "child killers!". It's the filth who rape and kill little kids.

 

You got offended after that but you had no problem calling me names. i didn't call you a sensitive little hypocrite even though you came off as one. "why" you may ask? because i don't know you personaly and i don't like judging people because of their posts on an online forum.

 

 

[lifted*fox]

so you're letting people who rape kids and people who kill kids live now, but people who rape and then kill a kid must die? 

 

I don't understand and I don't think you understand your own stance on this which is why your argument is confused, frustrated and all over the place. 

 

you're making far too bigger deal of the 'name calling' - you're big enough and bold enough to want to send people to their death then you should be able to hack being called angry little man on a forum.

 

sensitive little hypocrite though  fair enough, you gave it a go, eh. 

[the fox]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

so you're letting people who rape kids and people who kill kids live now, but people who rape and then kill a kid must die? 

I don't understand and I don't think you understand your own stance on this which is why your argument is confused, frustrated and all over the place. 

 

you're making far too bigger deal of the 'name calling' - you're big enough and bold enough to want to send people to their death then you should be able to hack being called angry little man on a forum.

 

sensitive little hypocrite though  fair enough, you gave it a go, eh. 

i would like to be respectful when addressing others thati have no background on and i don't know them personally because that's something called manners. If i address you in the right way i expect you to do the same. 

 

Yes i gave it a go. The biggest potty-mouth on FT calling others "angry"

I would stop now to not get us both suspended and save you the hissy fit when you come back.

[lifted*fox]

24 minutes ago, the fox said:

i would like to be respectful when addressing others thati have no background on and i don't know them personally because that's something called manners. If i address you in the right way i expect you to do the same. 

 

Yes i gave it a go. The biggest potty-mouth on FT calling others "angry"

I would stop now to not get us both suspended and save you the hissy fit when you come back.

 

That's just how I post mate. I might be a potty mouth but I'm ****ing eloquent with it. 

 

Look man, I'm not into falling out with people. We disagree. I think your argument is flawed and people who think 'just put a bullet in their head' are not my kind of people. It's not a workable, effective thing to do and it makes us animals no worse than those who've committed the crime.

 

We're not going to agree so sure, let's can it. As for hissy fits regarding bans - it is what it is. I've been involved in arguments like this before and I've got the ban and forum favourites avoid it. I say it as I see it, can't be fairer than that. 

 

Considering my provocative and 'sweary'  nature I get off quite lightly tbh. Although I've been around long enough for people to know that my posts aren't angry, just spattered with expressive expletives. 

 

Not about being angry at a forum, nobody got time for that shit.

 

Have a blessy evening man. 

[the fox]

@lifted*fox so, 

 

[lifted*fox]

Well, steady on . 

 

For the record though man, over the years I've probably agreed with you in many FT threads, in the same way I most likely have with Webbo and MattP. 

 

These threads in the General Topic section are provocative and occasionally I get the bit between my teeth and I'll argue to the death. Not sure why because nobody ever convinces anybody to change their mind and we all get pissy with each other. 

 

The fact I never have to spend time or hang out with anyone on here makes it easy to argue things in a more hardcore manner than you would if you got talking to someone with the same opinion at work, etc. It magnifies it because its easy. 

 

I hold zero ill feelings towards anyone on the forum. S'just words innit.

[the fox]

15 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Well, steady on . 

 

For the record though man, over the years I've probably agreed with you in many FT threads, in the same way I most likely have with Webbo and MattP. 

 

These threads in the General Topic section are provocative and occasionally I get the bit between my teeth and I'll argue to the death. Not sure why because nobody ever convinces anybody to change their mind and we all get pissy with each other. 

 

The fact I never have to spend time or hang out with anyone on here makes it easy to argue things in a more hardcore manner than you would if you got talking to someone with the same opinion at work, etc. It magnifies it because its easy. 

 

I hold zero ill feelings towards anyone on the forum. S'just words innit.

 

 

I like your posts too, mate. I find your unfiltered posts a breath of fresh air and i find myself agreeing on many of them. Sometimes (with no ill intentions) you find yourself agitated with something and you can't help but let somethings leak out. Honestly, i found myself in many times saying "you tell them, mate" while i read your comments.

I was gonna leave our little disagreement to die in this thread and leave you a PM but here it is!

 

while i have my beliefs on the matter to be different from yours i can't help but respect your opinion because it's not a crazy one. We don't think the same way on that matter but i get the point of not killing those sub-humans.

 

water under the bridge, mate. water under the bridge. i had worse discussions in here but i didn't really hold an opinion on a person outside said topic.

Edited 26 February 2018 by the fox

[lifted*fox]

Awesome man, glad we can move on. 

 

Now cue all the 'get a room' replies from everyone else hah. 

 

 

[Russell sprout]

Biscuit anyone

[Charl91]

2 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

 

 

Look man, I'm not into falling out with people. We disagree. I think your argument is flawed and people who think 'just put a bullet in their head' are not my kind of people. It's not a workable, effective thing to do and it makes us animals no worse than those who've committed the crime.

 

Does it? Really?

 

I find that to be one of those hyperbolic statements that doesn't hold true in reality. "Putting down" a person, after due legal process, isn't the same as being a serial child killer, for example.

Edited 26 February 2018 by Charl91

[Manwell Pablo]

3 hours ago, the fox said:

You may think that different places have a different ratio of psychos. you can't just say that "This country'" have "This amount of child killers" compared to a more civilised country if you don't consider their life choices and the way they think. Maybe their lifestyle and mentality is what propels them in doing such things no matter the consequence

 

Id say the comparison between ourselves and US states with the death penalty...or indeed a comparison between states without it and states with it, is a very level and clear benchmark. There is no clear difference between them. Your pretty much arguing against what most people in the western world know as a fact. 

 

No no one wants to be banged up for 20 years and no one wants to die. Those who committ these crimes don’t believe they will be caught and convicted therefore the punishment is irrelevant. 

 

 

[lifted*fox]

at base level it's one person killing someone and then another person killing someone. 

 

you can't dress it up as 'putting down' - it's choosing to kill someone. 

 

we're trying to set the example that taking someone's life away isn't ok - taking someone else's life away doesn't teach that. 

 

 

[lifted*fox]

i don't get it. 

 

certain people are hell-bent on death for justice but what justice is there in death? it's just nothing. you die - you're gone. blackness, silence. 

 

you're the only one who gets away with not having to relive your actions for the rest your time.

 

your victim is still gone, their family will still be alive - grieving. 

 

surely having to sit in a cell for the rest of your life with nothing but your mind and those four walls is justice.

 

nothing but thoughts, regrets and nightmares between four concrete walls for the rest of your life. 

 

not sure about anyone else but if I was a serial killer and had been caught I think I'd be requesting the lethal injection myself.  

Edited 26 February 2018 by lifted*fox

[Charl91]

22 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

i don't get it. 

 

certain people are hell-bent on death for justice but what justice is there in death? it's just nothing. you die - you're gone. blackness, silence. 

 

you're the only one who gets away with not having to relive your actions for the rest your time.

 

your victim is still gone, their family will still be alive - grieving. 

 

surely having to sit in a cell for the rest of your life with nothing but your mind and those four walls is justice.

 

nothing but thoughts, regrets and nightmares between four concrete walls for the rest of your life. 

 

not sure about anyone else but if I was a serial killer and had been caught I think I'd be requesting the lethal injection myself.  

See, this is the point I was making earlier. You seem to be arguing in your that killing someone is too cruel and morally reprehensible in your first post, while simultaneously arguing that it's not punishment enough. Do you not see how those views are contradictory? Also, how is imprisoning someone morally more just than killing someone? There isn't a logical argument for it, it's just based on the personal and social interpretation of the era.

 

I'm not interested in revenge, or inflicting as much suffering as possible - if I was then I'd be suggesting to legalise torture. I'm interested in justice, and in my view, in certain situations, there are people who deserve to be killed/put down/involuntarily euthanised for some unspeakably horrific crimes. That's just my view, but in the end justice will always come down to a persons own interpretation, and probably should be dictated by society. I do believe in reform/rehabilitation in most cases (I'm generally quite left-wing on the whole), but I also believe that there are some people who show no remorse and are not able to be rehabilitated. 

 

Also, in response to your previous comment about "it's one person killing another than another person killing another". It's completely different; one would be within a legal framework and the other would be unlawful. Using your logic, lets imagine a different scenario. Lets say that a person/couple imprisoned someone else inside their house for years (and there's been a lot of news stories about that kind of thing recently). Surely (by your logic) you couldn't send them to jail because "It's just one person imprisoning someone and then another person imprisoning someone".

 

At the end of the day, our society has decided that imprisonment is the best form of justice (though it's quite an arbitrary punishment - it could quite easily be many other things). And that's fine. I don't think that's a problem, and it's probably the best solution we currently have. But while I'm on board with most of the factual reasons for not being pro-capital punishment (eg. it costs more, isn't a deterrent) I find most of the emotive and moral arguments very wishy-washy.

Edited 26 February 2018 by Charl91

[Lionator]

There's no right or wrong answer and opinions will always differ. As a left leaning person I honestly think prisons should be places of rehabilitation although I understand that some people are lost causes and should be allowed to rot away in solitary confinement. Nobody is born evil, life events, upbringing etc can be huge in leading a person to kill, we can learn from these people and make sure we place measures in society to stop other people from commiting heinous crimes. It's really not black and white and I think this is why it would be extremely dangerous to reintroduce capital punishment.