- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Couldn't agree more.
When it comes to child molesters, I prefer a dead offender to a repeat offender
As for all this of late touchy feelie chemical crap squabble going on about lethal injections, a single bullet to the head is my idea of an inexpensive and humane for a quick execution.
Bang! Bury! Bye!
And, yes, I agree that is not what some sadistic scum really deserve. Just talking quality control low-cost efficiency here.
I meant that the death penalty is RIGHT, but not because it is a deterrent.
This is the lie the state has foisted upon a beguiled and inept public who is more interested in entertainment than the ability to think. Even the Founding Fathers knew that certain rights had to be spelled out because there would be folks who would need to have them written down somewhere so they would not be forgotten; however, these "rights" are not given, they simple exist, regardless of the state. The state forgets, so easily and conveniently, that it exists because individuals allow it.
Absolutely. I was responding only to the comment about the death penalty, not someone using potentially lethal force to defend himself or others.
But.. as a child I had a close friend who was murdered while fishing with his cousin. Both were murdered by a creep just released from prison. Do you think I believe in the death penalty?
Now THAT's an extreme view of the right of self defense.
The argument presented by murder and its punishment is what the appropriate penalty is. The act is very clear - it is the violation of the most primal, basic right of another - the right to life. In my opinion, the punishment for pre-meditated murder should be the forfeiture of life of the murderer. The state only carries out the punishment agreed upon by its empowerment: it is an agent - not an arbiter. That is what some people get confused. They view the law as the originator of punishment, rather than the agent. If we accept natural law, we accept that the punishment is affixed independently of the agent, but that it exists nonetheless.
However, a little torture of the child molester might be appropriate before the pistol missile finishes the job. OK, I'm a bit of a barbarian, but I'm a good-guy barbarian as opposed to the bad-guy barbarian jihadists who makes Attila look benevolent.
Then blow the perv away.
Jan
Go Teddy!!!!!!!
But look at the judgement of the average voter? Do you trust their uncorrectable evaluation of fact and ambiguity.
Just consider people with competing religious certainty. All the need is some objective ethical standards that are a science rather than a mystical certainty like in the crusades, inquisition and now Islamic totalitarianism.
And serving on a jury is WAY harder than voting. remember that a jury decision has to be unanimous. That means twelve "angry men" (pardon to Henry Fonda) from various walks of life all have to agree. And I absolutely object to the idea that we can't execute 99 guilty people because we might get 1 who is innocent. That's the sort of mentality that liberals use to crowd the prisons and petition for emotional pleas.
The sooner we all learn that and apply it in our lives, the sooner we all live in a safer world.
I say screw the law. I have a right to exist that no law can counter. Just as I have no right to force someone else, I do not accept anyone's right to force me. Read the oath...
Just ask Jewish people.
This is what happens when laws are supreme. That is why America has (or had) individual rights as supreme.
By your logic, in these two cases, because the perpetrators did not have weapons, the victims would not have had the right to shoot them once they were free?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoEH1XZx...
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06...
Yes - no right to shoot where unnecessary. It would also be stupid since it would give you life in prison.
I am on my own. A lot can happen in two minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AQ1WBb8...
The repetition should have no meaning when it comes to initiating greater force than necessary. Recognizing that "overkill" puts you in jail, not just the abuser.
Overkill is using a 2000# bomb to kill one person.
Overkill is not caring about collateral damage.
Overkill is emptying a magazine into the criminal and then reloading and doing it again, and again.
Overkill is not putting two in the criminal, one to make sure he knows why and one to do the job.
Don't think of the problem, instead think of the solution. What is your solution?
do what you have to stop him, but that is not likely murder. How simple.
If doing what I have to do to stop him includes hitting him in the head with a baseball bat, or in my case a polo mallet, that would be acceptable as long as he doesn't die as a consequence of an action he initiated?
Haven't you ever heard of the concept of the Paladin? The one who comes to the aid of the helpless facing an aggressor? Does that concept have no weight or meaning for you?
Just look at your last statement: I never said anything about letting the abuser initiate force. I'm not playing such a game; I can only ask that you try harder to hear what I have said.
I've made my point.
Just as delusional as people that claim men and women are not physically different and can perform the same physical feats, no matter what.
That position denies both basic biology and real world experience just about anyone can point to.
People can try to be perfectly logical and rational when the situation is not active in front of them.
When the situation is active and in front of you and the stress and adrenaline kicks in nobody is debating morality, you are reacting to a situation. Indecision at that point likely means you are the next victim.
If they are killed on the other hand, they will have no more victims, and maybe any previous ones will have fewer nightmares.
The law does condone the use of force, including deadly force, against someone committing a crime. Deadly force can become problematical depending on circumstances. But if you kill a child molester that you catch in the act, odds of winding up in jail are not terribly large. It is after all, Justifiable Homicide in most jurisdictions.
Recidivism among child molesters is among the highest of all criminals.
Do you not mind them being released to keep damaging or destroying the lives of more children?
Making sure they cannot repeat their offense is justice.
BTW I am entitled to my views just as you are.
Since you are not anyone I recognize as an authority over me, keep your condescending advice to "correct my views" to yourself
If I caught anyone abusing any of my kids, my 1911 would have words with that individual right there, right then.
Or think rationally and just do optimal harm.
I view murder (pre-meditated) to be an act worthy of capital punishment because it takes a life and all of its productivity away from family and society. Such acts inflict extreme emotional duress even on the survivors - for the rest of their lives. Murder hurts more than just the one murdered, and so can not be tolerated in a society which values life.
In my view, sexual abuse is nearly as bad, only the victim is still alive to deal with their ordeal. It will still haunt them for their entire lives - even with good counseling. And it will affect anyone who has a relationship with that person - especially a spouse or children. That person's offspring will be affected, poisoning the well so to speak for all of society. An act with such a long-lasting and broad reaching effect can not be handled so casually as you imply without risking the debasement and devaluation of quality of life itself - second only to life. How is one supposed to pursue happiness in life with such a spectre hanging over them?
No. In my opinion, the damage is worthy of capital punishment - even from my Christian perspective. For an Objectivist, this should be even more clear-cut.
I would also point out that your advocacy of "optimal harm" is a severe legal liability, because it is an admission that you looked past the offense to apply your own standard of retribution upon the perpetrator. You are then making a calculated judgement - premeditation - on just how much damage you should inflict on them. If I was a prosecuting attorney, this is motive and premeditation for intentional harm. At a minimum I could get you for battery, and I could even go so far as to argue that it would constitute torture because you are inflicting pain with the intent to make them suffer. Yes, you are going to have mitigating circumstances, but legally and morally, the course of action you propose is far more fraught with legal peril.
I would support complete castration also as a penalty, just so you know.
In principle, we agree.
I think the one thing we will agree on is the hope neither of us or our loved ones is put in the situation. I for one would rather this remain a hypothetical situation.
Define it if you can
Have you ever been in a situation where you had to defend yourself from severe physical harm or death?
Question is irrelevant. Just stick to the fact that one should do what is necessary, not more without significant repercussions.
Buh bye Troll
You do not want to debate or discuss you want to make pronouncements...
So yes Troll You are irrelevant...your favorite adjective
But it is always difficult to get a point across when the listening is having the emotions get in the way of listening.
Yes on right to defend oneself. Well said.
No on blowing the brains out if someone you think is doing harm where it can be simply stopped and handled through those charged with objectively determining fact and applying retaliatory force. That is not an act of self defense.
The police and courts are the appropriate way to avoid arbitrary and subjective abuse of others. Contrast that with resorting to dueling where the outcome had nothing to do with the merits of the conflicting positions. Is that what Nugent wants?