Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Grebfromgrebland

Also In The News

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

It is very true, the world is full of double standards. 

 

At the end of the day we need to eat, there are lots of us. I honestly don't think we could sustain the global population on organic crops alone. People need to be pragmatic enough to understand and accept that. 

Actually quite the opposite, we cannot maintain the current meat based diet (unless the frankenmeat finally becomes commercially available)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Actually quite the opposite, we cannot maintain the current meat based diet (unless the frankenmeat finally becomes commercially available)

I am aware there are problems with meat based diets as it stands. However I very much doubt we can sustain the global population on organic fruit and veg. There would be a famine quite quickly I suspect if we decided to go down that route.

 

With crops not sprayed with pesticides I expect quite a large amount of crops would be damaged/lost to insect/rodent/birds.

 

 

 

Edited by Foxin_Mad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK will be next. The Ho Secretary is well in favour of it.

 

Doesn't really matter if they're innocent either, it's a risk worth taking apparently. 

 

More red meat for the brexiteers. Take back control, get rid of the human rights act then with this new control do what ever you want with no nasty EU red tape to stop you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

BBC News - US government orders first federal executions since 2003
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49118134

I do not like death penalties per se, as I find life sentences to be more cruel as they separate criminals from life for the rest of their own existence, slowly, but steadily.

 

Then again, if a human being is heinous and vicious enough to take somebody else's life, then you could argue an execution balances things out.

 

Much more interested in the amount of death row inmates thrown into prison based on faulty accusations.

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/california-death-penalty-moratorium/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I do not like death penalties per se, as I find life sentences to be more cruel as they separate criminals from life for the rest of their own existence, slowly, but steadily.

 

Then again, if a human being is heinous and vicious enough to take somebody else's life, then you could argue an execution balances things out.

 

Much more interested in the amount of death row inmates thrown into prison based on faulty accusations.

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/california-death-penalty-moratorium/

This is the nub and crux for me. Absolute punishments require absolute proof, as while you can free a person from jail and compensate them, you can't bring them back to life.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

This is the nub and crux for me. Absolute punishments require absolute proof, as while you can free a person from jail and compensate them, you can't bring them back to life.

What about where there is absolute proof and no remorse? I am generally against the death penalty but would find it hard to object to someone like Anders Breivik being executed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

The UK will be next. The Ho Secretary is well in favour of it.

 

Doesn't really matter if they're innocent either, it's a risk worth taking apparently. 

 

More red meat for the brexiteers. Take back control, get rid of the human rights act then with this new control do what ever you want with no nasty EU red tape to stop you.

 

 

Goodness me nothing like a bit of hyperbolic nonsense. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Captain... said:

What about where there is absolute proof and no remorse? I am generally against the death penalty but would find it hard to object to someone like Anders Breivik being executed.

 

because the general consensus should be that two wrongs don't make a right, etc. it's also been proven that eye for an eye punishment like the death penalty brings no comfort for the grieving families / victims - it can actually intensify the feelings of hurt. then you also have to consider the well-being of people who have to carry out the act of killing someone sentenced to death - again, something that history shows can **** these people up too. 

 

I agree that it costs a lot of money to put people like this away but how about we try something progressive like releasing people who are behind bars for selling a bit of weed (seeing as more progressive states / countries are starting to do this along with legalisation) and make room for more serious criminals. Let's stop locking people up for non-violent crimes / drug-related offences, make more of rehabilitation / reform facilities and keep prison, lock and key for dangerous, violent criminals. 

 

all seems far too sensible though. we're no longer a country that does progressive forward-thinking things. we're going back to the golden-age apparently. 

 

Edited by lifted*fox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

What about where there is absolute proof and no remorse? I am generally against the death penalty but would find it hard to object to someone like Anders Breivik being executed.

Perhaps I am being pedantic for its own sake here...but I'll elaborate on what I mean by absolute and use the Anders Breivik case as an example:

 

At a base level, how do we know that someone like Breivik did what he did? None of us saw him do it (thank goodness), so none of us have first-hand evidence. What we do have is multiple witness testimonies, other forensic evidence and a confession from the accused that, when all put together suggest that beyond a reasonable doubt he committed the crimes he was accused of.

 

However...witnesses can lie and/or be coerced, evidence can be faked, and a confession can be a boastful fantasy, and the media could be lying to us about the whole thing.

 

Of course, in that particular case the balance of probability weighs heavily, really heavily, in favour of the man having done the terrible stuff he did - certainly heavily enough to put him behind bars for a very long time unless compelling counter-evidence suddenly presents itself. However, none of us here can say, to an absolute certainty, that he committed those crimes. That is what I mean by absolute proof.

 

If you think that this logically leads to a conclusion where no conviction can satisfy a burden of proof that exacting, then you'd be absolutely right. And therein lies the problem with the death penalty - as long as we cannot satisfy the burden of proof to that level (and I'm not sure we ever will be able to barring some miraculous jump in jurisprudence), as long as you use it you are accepting the risk, however small, of executing a person who did not commit the crime they were convicted for.

 

Barring concrete correlation-to-causation evidence that the DP actually saves innocent lives at a much higher rate than it would take them, then I find such a risk unconscionable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps I am being pedantic for its own sake here...but I'll elaborate on what I mean by absolute and use the Anders Breivik case as an example:

 

At a base level, how do we know that someone like Breivik did what he did? None of us saw him do it (thank goodness), so none of us have first-hand evidence. What we do have is multiple witness testimonies, other forensic evidence and a confession from the accused that, when all put together suggest that beyond a reasonable doubt he committed the crimes he was accused of.

 

However...witnesses can lie and/or be coerced, evidence can be faked, and a confession can be a boastful fantasy, and the media could be lying to us about the whole thing.

 

Of course, in that particular case the balance of probability weighs heavily, really heavily, in favour of the man having done the terrible stuff he did - certainly heavily enough to put him behind bars for a very long time unless compelling counter-evidence suddenly presents itself. However, none of us here can say, to an absolute certainty, that he committed those crimes. That is what I mean by absolute proof.

 

If you think that this logically leads to a conclusion where no conviction can satisfy a burden of proof that exacting, then you'd be absolutely right. And therein lies the problem with the death penalty - as long as we cannot satisfy the burden of proof to that level (and I'm not sure we ever will be able to barring some miraculous jump in jurisprudence), as long as you use it you are accepting the risk, however small, of executing a person who did not commit the crime they were convicted for.

 

Barring concrete correlation-to-causation evidence that the DP actually saves innocent lives at a much higher rate than it would take them, then I find such a risk unconscionable.

 

 

Of course I largely agree with everything you said which is why I didn't say I thought Anders Breivik should be executed, just that I would find it really difficult to argue against it should it have been decreed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain... said:

Of course I largely agree with everything you said which is why I didn't say I thought Anders Breivik should be executed, just that I would find it really difficult to argue against it should it have been decreed. 

Oh, certainly, I probably wouldn't be losing much sleep over the idea either. However, I'm against the general principle (as you seem to be) for the reasons above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I'm genuinely astonished, @leicsmac

 

If somebody had asked me who is the person least likely to have been in a nightclub, you'd have been top of my list.

lol

 

Well, I used to work near Gwangju, still have some friends there and a while back an evening visiting them led there. What can I say - even as I'm pushing middle-age I like to let my hair down every so often. :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49137520

 

He said one witness "explained to staff that things kicked off when another passenger appeared dressed as a clown. This upset one of their party because they'd specifically booked a cruise with no fancy dress. It led to a violent confrontation."

 

What the actual ****. lol

 

Excessive alcohol consumption involved again.

 

The British are incapable of drinking in moderation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...