[X] My Assistant

[Bree Bree]

Well, to begin with. In Nebraska, they approved Lethal Injection as a form of the death penalty, as the electric was found as cruel and unusual punishments. BUT, from what I heard from my teacher (A total brainiac...) he said that the Lethal Injection takes about 5-7 mins to kill them and they feel like they are on fire. I would find that as a cruel and unusual procedures.

And, people say that we are wasting money on the life sentence, keeping the creepers in jails for however long they live.

Now, I want to hear what others have to say about this. But I like links that might help prove your point .

[Aeschylus]

Deterrent from crime is basic human instinct.

What?

So you place the condemned in jail, where they suffer to some extent (not entirely, because that would be inhuman), while they repent and go through what is essentially rehabilitation. You're not writing off anyone by allowing the accused criminal to be rehabilitated.

Exactly how do you rehabilitate a thief? They already know stealing is bad, yet they still chose do do it. Most rapists, murders, extortionists, and con-artists understand what they are doing is wrong, that's why they go to such lengths to cover up what they did. How do you rehabilitate someone who already understands what they are doing is wrong, and still does it?

Store owner's greedy if he doesn't let a couple bucks slide.

See subjective reasoning. Greed can be expressed many ways, even by giving money away. You can't simply categorize someone as greedy because they want to protect what is theirs.

There's a difference between a thief and a criminal; a petty thief steals a couple items of food, whereas the criminal empties the register and threatens the guy at gunpoint. Massive difference.

You might as well say there is a difference between a square and a polygon. A thief is a criminal, just as a square is a polygon.

When did I say something about stealing other people's money? If it was the bank comment, I apologize, I have no clue what I was trying to say there (i wrote that post up when I just woke up).

I'm not sure. I think I was reading more than one comment at the time, and got confused. I can guarantee it isn't the first or last time it'll happen.

Semantics. If you don't have a real counter for it, then don't counter it at all.

Perhaps if you worded your points with more confidence? If you stat a fact then it is a fact. You shouldn't twiddle with the strength of facts.

Furthermore, I posted a source later, which should make it damn apparent that I know the facts.

....?

A criminal is someone who breaks the law. You say that the action of pity towards a criminal is disgusting.

In terms of what you can and cannot pity? Yes, laws are merely words, and breaking the law has nothing to do with the pity you get.

I was not saying that everyone should feel disgust towards criminals. It was subjective reasoning; I might as well have said, "I find pity for criminals disgusting." It is my opinion, and, as such, holds no power.

This is what someone says when they can't counter a point properly.

Well, you were using subjective reasoning, an opinion.

You used the term criminal, I have shown proof why it holds very little substance, and then stated that I do not deem it a good term to use to refer to people.

You're essentially calling me and many of my friends on this site a criminal and you're saying it's disgusting that people can feel pity for criminals.

Actually, a criminal is someone who has been found guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty. All your friends are not criminals; at least until they go to court. You should only refer to people that have been convicted or are guilty of a crime as criminals.

Yep because that's what every single criminal is. I think it's sad that I have to tell you that the statement was sarcasm, seeing as you seem incapable of reading the point rather than the wording.

In which case, seeing as they are human, they are still likely to change; giving them at least another chance after years of rehabilitation isn't too much to ask for.

I don't think you know what sarcasm is.

Sarcasm n
-harsh or bitter derision or irony
-a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark

How is your previous comment sarcastic?

Rehabilitation isn't for just the insane, you know.

Fine, what type of rehabilitation would you assign a thief, or con-artist? We already know that a psychopath, or sociopath would be assigned Psychiatric rehabilitation. This wouldn't help someone who does not have a mental disability, or has become mentally unstable. How do you rehabilitate someone who's only problem is breaking the law?

I'm making a statement that you don't grasp the concept of death as well as you should, and I'm trying to make you get a little perspective before spewing crap like you are.

You still have yet to prove what I'm saying is crap. You may not agree with it, but not agreeing with something doesn't make it crap.

As to the concept of death, what would you have me think? Baww people are dying, bawwwww. Yeah people have been dying for far longer than recorded history. They've died for a plethora of reasons, and will continue to die.

I don't see anything wrong with a jury condemning someone to death for the crimes they committed. I don't see anything wrong with a person dying for the crimes they've committed. I don't see any reason to change this either.

And clearly you don't respect me enough to not only acknowledge all my points, but counter specific portions for my wording and not my content.

No, I don't respect you. I don't know you or care to know you.

Wording is a critically important part of any argument. I'm not going to ignore poor wording, as neither should you.

I abhor this play-to-win mentality behind debates that you are expressing right now.

I don't really care :3

[Lord Raven]

What?

Yes, humans have a natural tendency to obey the laws that are set forth. Either that, or they have a natural tendency to mind their own business as well as not kill others/rape others/etc unless they've got something wrong in the head or truly needed to.

Exactly how do you rehabilitate a thief? They already know stealing is bad, yet they still chose do do it. Most rapists, murders, extortionists, and con-artists understand what they are doing is wrong, that's why they go to such lengths to cover up what they did. How do you rehabilitate someone who already understands what they are doing is wrong, and still does it?

Of course they know what they're doing is wrong. Rehabilitation isn't teaching them that something is wrong; it's essentially re-wiring the way they work so while they know what they're doing is wrong, they resist the urge to do that again.

See subjective reasoning. Greed can be expressed many ways, even by giving money away. You can't simply categorize someone as greedy because they want to protect what is theirs.

Yes, you can if they want to protect what's theirs. It depends on their reaction to losing something compared to how much they lose. If they react enough to call the police when a little bit is taken, then yes that can easily be considered greed.

How can greed be expressed in giving money away? Unless it's unwillful -- even that is situational -- then there's no possible way it's an emblem of greediness.

You might as well say there is a difference between a square and a polygon. A thief is a criminal, just as a square is a polygon.

A criminal in your definition is quite a large bit different than a criminal in my definition. I don't see a criminal as one who breaks the law, I see a criminal as one who breaks the law but noticeably disturbs the peace. That is consistent with the negative connotations of the word as you describe it. A petty thief is not a criminal, in that sense.

Perhaps if you worded your points with more confidence? If you stat a fact then it is a fact. You shouldn't twiddle with the strength of facts.

You know damn well what I meant. I said it with plenty of confidence, and you're just messing around with semantics to make yourself seem smarter when it makes your debating tactics comparable to that of a tool or a troll.

And my source. That is a lot more that goes to simply "charity."

I was not saying that everyone should feel disgust towards criminals. It was subjective reasoning; I might as well have said, "I find pity for criminals disgusting." It is my opinion, and, as such, holds no power.

I'm pointing out how absolutely disgusting I find your opinion with my own opinion. And frankly, I'm appalled by your attitude towards criminals, even if they did commit terrible acts.

Well, you were using subjective reasoning, an opinion.

A debate is held between opposing opinions and each opinion is backed up by fact. I stated an opinion, you use fact to fight it. It's simple. Subjective reasoning my ass, if you can't counter it without stating the name of a logical fallacy, then you simply cannot counter it. Certainly, if it were fallible as you said, you'd be able to counter it in your own words as opposed to bringing up some random debate fallacies you found on wikipedia?

Actually, a criminal is someone who has been found guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty. All your friends are not criminals; at least until they go to court. You should only refer to people that have been convicted or are guilty of a crime as criminals.

There are more definitions than that of the word criminal, in which case there is an extremely negative connotation attached to it; something that is more important than words.

Also, even in consistency with your definition, I am still a criminal, I've been caught speeding.

I don't think you know what sarcasm is.

Sarcasm n
-harsh or bitter derision or irony
-a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark

How is your previous comment sarcastic?

Not all people are insane enough to need rehabilitation. Sociopaths and psychotic killers can go for the insanity plea. There are people who understand what they are doing and still do it.

Still irrelevant to my full argument, but not every criminal is as you describe. My comment was sarcastic because I said "Yep because that's what every single criminal is!" which is completely false.

Fine, what type of rehabilitation would you assign a thief, or con-artist? We already know that a psychopath, or sociopath would be assigned Psychiatric rehabilitation. This wouldn't help someone who does not have a mental disability, or has become mentally unstable. How do you rehabilitate someone who's only problem is breaking the law?

The first two do not get incarcerated. Psychopaths/Sociopaths are those that deserve a life punishment and maybe even the death penalty. Bearing in mind, I do not argue in favor or against the death penalty -- just in special cases where letting a man live is indeed far worse for us than letting them stay alive and in jail -- I am mainly arguing against your point of view where a criminal is trash that does not deserve any sort of human emotion.

You still have yet to prove what I'm saying is crap. You may not agree with it, but not agreeing with something doesn't make it crap.

Not necessarily. Opinion is sometimes bullshit, sometimes not. People go around stuff like "I'm anti gay marriage and that's MY opinion so stfu" but the train of thought they have is foolish for many reasons. With opinions, in certain cases there is a wrong way out, and your equating criminals to crap is clearly ignorant.

As to the concept of death, what would you have me think? Baww people are dying, bawwwww. Yeah people have been dying for far longer than recorded history. They've died for a plethora of reasons, and will continue to die.

I don't see anything wrong with a jury condemning someone to death for the crimes they committed. I don't see anything wrong with a person dying for the crimes they've committed. I don't see any reason to change this either.

And this doesn't frighten you in any way? I think about death far more deeply than that, especially if my loved ones were the ones dying. It's the cessation of life, the fact that you'll never get that person back again, and the hopelessness behind it. And just thinking of their body not being able to move by themselves ever again... doesn't make you the least bit sad?

It's especially frightened me because my dad's almost died through sickness many times throughout both his own life and my own life. My grandmother even died (and my mom's scream after finding out still lingers in my mind from time to time) that causes this emotion to occur. And frankly, this is what results from a premature death, where it was not natural. Natural deaths I can live with, because the person died peacefully; but disease and hell, this lethal injection and just a human being -- no matter who -- forcing someone else to just stop living? That's just sick in my opinion, especially considering the human being killed most likely has a great deal of human attachment to this world.

If they were a sociopath or psychopath then I'd have no reason to care, because they're dead inside. But every other criminal, even those on death row, have an attachment to this world and even though they fucked up a couple times, it seems extremely inhumane to end someone's life when they can just live the rest of their lives somehow. Even if it is in jail, where they at least have some luxury available to them.

"Baww people die" is a gross simplification, and using your own words an "illogical generalization," and just a terrible thing to say. Spouting memes does not good, or even witty, conversation make; a fact that many people should actually learn.

I may not believe in a God or a higher deity, nor do I actually care, but it's still up to me that a human is not in the right to determine the fate of another human that can feel emotions much like their own unless it's the only way to protect themselves. For most criminals on death row, most of them would not even have any means to break out of jail and take their stuff one step further. Hell, some of them might even prefer prison; they're not hurting anyone, it's more cost efficient, and they're isolated from the rest of the world as a near-perfect failsafe. Jailbreaks don't even happen very often.

Don't go lightly swinging the godforsaken fucking death penalty when you're only using your stance as a way to win this debate and when people's lives are on the line, and then turn my argument into a fucking semantics war just to boost your own ego. This issue has far more magnitude than you think, and you truly are ignorant given the way you're arguing in favor of it.

No, I don't respect you. I don't know you or care to know you.

That's nice, I guess I don't have to hold back much either.

Wording is a critically important part of any argument. I'm not going to ignore poor wording, as neither should you.

No, when you don't debate like a complete tool, wording means jack shit. It's the actual point that matters, especially considering this is far from a formal debate.

I don't really care

So you only debate to flaunt your e-penis? Almost nobody in this board except you debate for sport. That's a pretty terrible reason to vocally condemn all criminals as you have, at any rate.



I still enjoy the fact that you skip crucial points. It really makes you look worse.