I like how the first thing I though of was the fifth post, makes me happytastic.IdealistCommi said:
Poll: Eye for an eye, what do you think?
- Thread starter StonkThis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
By "Brings down society" I meant this: If a man steals a car, the owner now has to spend money on another car. He now has less money to spend on other things like DvD's and Shoes. With less money to spend on stuff, people who sell the stuff now have less income, and therefore less money to spend. Everyone is brought down slightly, just from one robbery. It's basic economics. So if everyone is brought down slightly, the quality of life has been brought down, and society has been brought down slightly. But I'm sure you already knew this.funguy2121 said:
Moving on, no we wouldn't be better than them. Not at all. But it's fair. Even. Balenced. And honestly, I'm sorry your life sucks. But bitching about it won't improve it. And there is a difference between say, lethal injection like we do today, and shooting someone infront of a crowd of people. Obviously, exicutions would be done the right way.
You didn't hear a word I said, did you? Please, go back and read it again. You're still talking about fairness, and I'm telling you that fairness has no place in an adult's itinerary. "We wouldn't be better than terrorists if we tried and sentenced them without killing them?" How is that possible? If that's true then...never mind, I've tired of repeating myself. If you comment on this again, please read pages 5 and 6 first, otherwise it's insulting.
Wasn't bitching. Was making a point. Fairness is for chumps. 'kay? 'kay.
The comment about blowing them away was not for y-oh, ya got me doing it again. Please read the entire comment before responding.
Wasn't bitching. Was making a point. Fairness is for chumps. 'kay? 'kay.
The comment about blowing them away was not for y-oh, ya got me doing it again. Please read the entire comment before responding.
Oh, boy, this chestnut...(No offence intended, of course.)
The original meaning of "An eye for an eye" was for a want of Fairness, not revenge. Basicaly, some people were killing people who stabbed other people's eyes out. Then Jesus (I think) Comes up and says "Why take a life for an eye? Take an eye for an eye, and nothing more." He was bascialy saying "if you HAVE to get revenge, make sure you only do as much as the revenge-ie did."
So, in that respect, Eye for an eye is perfectly right. As for what it means now... Who knows? It would stop stupid pricks stabbing people's eyes out, for sure!
The original meaning of "An eye for an eye" was for a want of Fairness, not revenge. Basicaly, some people were killing people who stabbed other people's eyes out. Then Jesus (I think) Comes up and says "Why take a life for an eye? Take an eye for an eye, and nothing more." He was bascialy saying "if you HAVE to get revenge, make sure you only do as much as the revenge-ie did."
So, in that respect, Eye for an eye is perfectly right. As for what it means now... Who knows? It would stop stupid pricks stabbing people's eyes out, for sure!
Ghandi is right and you misunderstand criminals.StonkThis said:
Criminals carry out crimes on the basis that they will get away with it, or in acts of passion so intense no logical argument could possibly stop them, it won't even slow them down in much the same way the death penalty doesn't stop murderers.
It also begs for revenge, taking that approach where do you draw the eye for an eye line? The system would spiral permanently because every action has a victim, in this system the victim gets to take revenge, but the revenge creates a victim, who gets to take revenge, which creates another victim, who gets...
I don't think I made myself very clear in the first post, but you and some others, like max, seem to see what I mean. You do unto the other, as they did to you, unless of course they killed you, in which case, some other guy does. Max made the point that the death kind of ones, or torture, etc. would be done by a government employed person, kind of replacing the whole prison thing (except for lesser crimes, like robbery, cause it a homeless man steals your stereo, what are you going to steal in return? As for the people saying one sentenced answers, extensive... Come on guys...TAGM said:
it would work better than the current system anyway, at the moment jail is a tax funded training facility for criminals.funguy2121 said:
Who thought that up anyhow?
Yeah, lets put all the murderers, rapists and gangtards into a building and give them nothing else to do but train and plot.
Oh, by the way life is 26years in the legal system.
Idiots!
"I had to go to prison to become a criminal"
/Shawshank redemption
Doesn't anyone realize how contradictory the death penalty is?Chief565 said:
Here's an example:
Judge: I sentence you to the electric chair for murder
Muderer: So to prove the fact that no one has the right to kill someone else, you're going to kill me?
Judge: Yes
Murderer: Don't you see the massive contradiction there?
Judge: LALALALALAA! I'm not listening!
I hate the idea of a large faceless government judging whether or not people deserve to stay alive, whats wrong with rehabilitation, or prison, or a punch in the face?
Please, at the very least quote wikipedia before...ya know what, don't. Don't ever use a reference, or research your facts, again. Because I can't stop laughing.TAGM said:
The original meaning of "eye for an eye" was for a want of fried banana, which every ancient philosopher can tell you is the only way to eat a friggin' banana. So one day Archimedes, Plato and Constantine were sitting around a campfire, just bullshittin' about metaphysics, when alluvuhsuddin Jesus and Mohammed walked up, both of 'em newly cyclops'd. And that's the true meaning of Christmas.
Wait, Spike, who you callin' an idiot?Hakazaba said:
Drug trade, drug trade, drug trade. If we legalize and ACTUALLY POLICE the relatively harmless drugs as we do with tobacco and alcohol, those black markets will dry up. That's how the jails got flooded in the first place. Think about it: how much of their market is weed alone?
Of course, that would cut in on CIA profits quite a bit but- oh, hey, let's talk about Miley Cyrus. Here are the new pics of her from the TMZ web site!
No ones going to get a life sentence and have criminal intentions when they get out.Hakazaba said:
You're the one who quoted shawshank redemption, did the old guy become a criminal when he left?
No he didn't, he hung himself. That wouldn't have happened if he'd got the counseling he needed.
You do know that the pictures on the box are not real right.Jonesy911 said:
and besides, the character who i quoted was Andy who became a fraudster.
you also did not reply to my point, please don't change the subject.
edit: if someone does not care so much it leads to suicide then they don't care about prison.
He wanted to get back in, remember?
It would be good but only if you have absolutely irrefutable proof that the person is guilty of the crime, because if there is the slightest chance that they are not, then you would be committing a crime yourself by punishing them. (i'm thinking of the death penalty here)
Not true all you said was.
And what you said was false, in the United States, 68% percent of males and 58% of females are rearrested.
Slightly higher than 0%.
Edit: The US also has a quarter of the worlds prisoners, despite having only 5% of the total population of the world.
The rest was about a movie.Jonesy911 said:
And what you said was false, in the United States, 68% percent of males and 58% of females are rearrested.
Slightly higher than 0%.
Edit: The US also has a quarter of the worlds prisoners, despite having only 5% of the total population of the world.