Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/15/09 02:13 AM, 372 wrote:

At 8/15/09 02:07 AM, Abnormality wrote: If you kill a killer, you have saved the people the killer would gave otherwise killed, you stupid fuck.

First of all, you obviously don't get the concept of the fact that if you kill a killer, you become a killer. You may mask them by calling them "Hero" but its all the same.

In that case, assassinating Hitler before the hollocaust started would be a bad thing, even though it would save over 6 million lives?

At 8/15/09 02:26 AM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote:

In that case, assassinating Hitler before the hollocaust started would be a bad thing, even though it would save over 6 million lives?

Like I said before. Humans get put in jail. Animals get put down.

Nice to see you again Mr.Glisson.

At 8/15/09 02:26 AM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote: In that case, assassinating Hitler before the hollocaust started would be a bad thing, even though it would save over 6 million lives?

Of course unless you accept Nostradamus as evidence of future events.

At 8/15/09 02:18 AM, Sekhem wrote:

At 8/15/09 02:12 AM, Sispri wrote: I don't believe in corporal punishment. As long as a criminal is incarcerated then they are no longer a threat to society.

At the end of the day, how better are we if we stoop to the vicious, intentional slaughter of a fellow human being? It's very hypocritical and barbaric if you ask me.

Calling it slaughter is a bit misleading since we don't publicly hang/shoot criminals like they do in the middle east (at least not anymore). We inject them and they die as painlessly and as humanely as possible. And who cares if we're better or not than the criminal? It's not like we're killing innocents as they did.

But is it really necessary to execute someone who is already in submission? What does it accomplish if they are no longer able to do anything? To prove a point they say. A point in which they use death as an incentive not to commit felonies? Or is it just retribution?

A life sentence in a maximum security prison is good enough for even the most dangerous criminal in my opinion. An early death is surely too good for anyone of that caliber.

If a spider bit you on the arm, you would probably kill it, right? It's the same concept. Except with humans. Anything that damages society, society kills.

True. And maybe that's the problem.

If a spider bit you on the arm, you would probably kill it, right? It's the same concept. Except with humans. Anything that damages society, society kills.

True. And maybe that's the problem.

Theirs something that makes a human besides our physical and mental being, and that is being humane. If we are not humane, we are not considered humans, now we are no better then animals. Animals don't have the same rights as humans.

Thats a bit too simple right there. The difference is that we kill them for the sake of protecting innocent people, for the sake of punishing people who do terrible, horrible things. Motivation saves us from hypocrisy.

I'm still conflicted over this really. But NG, when considering the death penalty, you have ask yourself: How far do you trust the government? Do you really trust them with this sort of power?

At 8/15/09 02:55 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Thats a bit too simple right there. The difference is that we kill them for the sake of protecting innocent people, for the sake of punishing people who do terrible, horrible things. Motivation saves us from hypocrisy.

May be, but is their not a line between protecting the innocent and playing god?

At 8/15/09 02:58 AM, 372 wrote:

At 8/15/09 02:55 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Thats a bit too simple right there. The difference is that we kill them for the sake of protecting innocent people, for the sake of punishing people who do terrible, horrible things. Motivation saves us from hypocrisy.

May be, but is their not a line between protecting the innocent and playing god?

Certainly. That's why trust is an issue. How can we be sure that the power won't be abused? The justice system has previously failed, and convicted people which were actually innocent. A perfect legal system would be one where only truly guilty people are convicted, and perfection doesn't exist anywhere (Least of all, the government) This means that if keep the death penalty, eventuality we will kill an innocent person.

And killing an innocent person is murder, is it not? How ironic, that the system meant to protect innocent people will eventually kill one of them.

At 8/15/09 03:08 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

And killing an innocent person is murder, is it not? How ironic, that the system meant to protect innocent people will eventually kill one of them.

Yea, the real issue is, we don't know how many lives we save by taking one, however we do know how many lives are lost by not taking one. Therefore we assume that killing will eventually save lives, we might be right, we might be wrong. It all depends on the situation.

You know what would be really fucked up and has probably already happened? The fact that one of the "innocent" lives saved by executing a serial killer goes and does some evil shit anyway. Suppose we let the killer loose and kills that person before he/she kills anyone?

But hey, isn't the bias upon which such determinism is based fun? No one will ever know, but when it does we'll say "See! Good thing we killed that guy!" Enjoy your confirmation bias.

It's to teach them that we can kill the people who kill people when they do kill people they will get killed.

At 8/15/09 03:23 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: You know what would be really fucked up and has probably already happened? The fact that one of the "innocent" lives saved by executing a serial killer goes and does some evil shit anyway. Suppose we let the killer loose and kills that person before he/she kills anyone?

So we're going to use the killers against each other? So one killer kills the other? Then we kill the surviving killer, making killers of us and starting the whole cycle over again? That is fucked up, but we have no way of knowing for sure what a person is going to do in the future. Free will man, we could change our minds at any mind. S

But hey, isn't the bias upon which such determinism is based fun? No one will ever know, but when it does we'll say "See! Good thing we killed that guy!" Enjoy your confirmation bias.

Doesn't always workout so well. As for the other people saying things about killing Hitler before he started the Holocaust; killing Hitler as an innocent would be terrible. If Hitler never commited the Holocaust, would he be so bad? I think Hitler is a horrible person, who, if survived, does deserve to die for what he did. But killing him before he commited those things would be killing him while he was still innocent. The only way it would be justified would be if we knew for sure that he was about to do it.

Death penalty should be allowed only for war crimes.

At 8/15/09 03:39 AM, satanbrain wrote: Death penalty should be allowed only for war crimes.

Which is still basically the same thing; punishing the act of killing people by killing other people.

At 8/15/09 01:48 AM, 372 wrote: Has anyone else notice, how we kill people to show people who kill people that killing people is wrong?

have you noticed that all mankind has done has been utter hypocrisy?

People who kill people, need people who kill people because they kill people, because killing people who kill people is just like killing people kill people because people kill other people, just for killing people who kill people, and in the end all were doing is killing people who kill people who killed people because they killed people who kill people because other people kill people who kill people.

In other words, Society makes me randy.

At 8/15/09 01:50 AM, tweekee wrote: I believe in an Eye for an Eye, so that seems reasonable to me.

i think its accurate... but not taken far enough... for example... if someone raped, tortured and then eventually killed a girl, then he should be made to suffer JUST like she did

At 8/15/09 03:34 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 8/15/09 03:23 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

That is fucked up, but we have no way of knowing for sure what a person is going to do in the future. Free will man, we could change our minds at any mind. S

That's what I was getting at.

As for the other people saying things about killing Hitler before he started the Holocaust; killing Hitler as an innocent would be terrible.

Agreed, but then we're up against the "Kill one, save many" mentality. The problem would be convincing people that killing him is a good thing. And once he is dead, it's useless because what we would plan on blaming him for would never occur so now we're being convicted of murder.

If Hitler never commited the Holocaust, would he be so bad?

Perhaps not, but attempting to take over the world would be pretty high on the "What we consider evil" list. However, the act of domination isn't evil, it's how you do it and what will happen after it's complete.

But killing him before he commited those things would be killing him while he was still innocent. The only way it would be justified would be if we knew for sure that he was about to do it.

I agree, see time paradox above :P.

That's really confusing but I think we get it. Either way, it's fucked up. Why can't there just be peace and love, and no stabbings or shootings? We're all the same on the inside, come on guys. Let's put aside the hate and we can bring world peace together.

At 8/15/09 04:04 AM, MissingNYC wrote:

At 8/15/09 01:50 AM, tweekee wrote: I believe in an Eye for an Eye, so that seems reasonable to me.

i think its accurate... but not taken far enough... for example... if someone raped, tortured and then eventually killed a girl, then he should be made to suffer JUST like she did

No, never. Thats makes us responsible for endorsing the same thing we're punishing. Even if it is for the sake of punishment, its totally fucked up. We cannot commit any crimes while attempting to punish criminals: least we become as bad as them. How can we can ourselves righteous if we miscarry the very justice that we claim to champion? Again, do you really want to trust the government with the power to legally torture someone?(Beside, who do you intend on getting to rape the prisoner? Don't we have better things to do then pay state sponsored rapists?)
We must hold ourselves to a higher standards.