-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
Are you for or against the death penalty?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
Decimation.
How can someone say religion matters in the question of death penalty when no one stated who executes the penalty? I can be a gang member and still execute a death penalty. I can be a president/dictator and still execute a death penalty. I can be god and still execute a death penalty. And what do you guys believe our moral stands will be in 500 - 1000 years? As educated people know Muhammed the prophet married a 9 year old child and made her his wife. This was not wrong in 600 BC. But today its considered illegal.
Why can someone say death penalty is a state murder if the population through democratic elections require a murderer's death? We have the excellent priveligie to choose our rulers. Something they did not have in 600 BC.
How can someone say religion matters in the question of death penalty when no one stated who executes the penalty? I can be a gang member and still execute a death penalty. I can be a president/dictator and still execute a death penalty. I can be god and still execute a death penalty. And what do you guys believe our moral stands will be in 500 - 1000 years? As educated people know Muhammed the prophet married a 9 year old child and made her his wife. This was not wrong in 600 BC. But today its considered illegal.
Why can someone say death penalty is a state murder if the population through democratic elections require a murderer's death? We have the excellent priveligie to choose our rulers. Something they did not have in 600 BC.
Opatagio said:
Well, I went to university and I didn't know that.
No. It WAS (imo) wrong in 600 B.C.. It just wasen't illegal.
No offense to those people that worship this guy. But as prophets go; it sounds like this guy sucked.
Maybe he became a great man after he fucked his 9 year old wife. And then he saw the light.
Last edited:
mcrocket said:
You do know Muhammed the prophet is the grounder of the Islam religion? And no, marrying a 9 year old child was not a moral wrong during that time. Even today in India marrage between 16-20 year old men and 10-12 year old childs are happening and isnt considered wrong nor illegal.
Opatagio said:
Yeah. I know who he was.
And yes it was moraly wrong to marry a 9 year old. Just as slavery was legal for centuries. And beating women was legal for centuries.
And I do not care what is considered fine or legal. Fucking a ten year old girl is wrong...period.
I am not huge on Jesus Christ either. But I don't remember hearing about him fucking minors.
Are you saying that you think it is alright for a 20 year old man to fuck a 10 year old girl?
Sorry man. Your prophet kinda sucked. At least during one part of his life...as far as I am concerned.
What a role model.
'Man that is a cute neice you have there. After I get off work do you mind if I ride my chariot over to her elementary school and take her out, marry her and fuck her?'
Great influence on people. Not.
Last edited:
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
Opatagio said:
I think everyone knows who the founder of Islam is - it's just the issue of his wife's (Aisha) age which was suprising - I've just reviewed wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha):
Young marriage age controversy
The age of Aisha at marriage is an extremely contentious issue. On the one hand, there are several hadiths which are said to have been narrated by Aisha herself, which claim that she was six or seven years old when betrothed and nine when the marriage was consummated. On the other hand, there is evidence from early Muslim chroniclers like Ibn Ishaq that indicates Aisha may have been 12 to 14 years old, just past the age of puberty, or perhaps even older.
Most Muslim scholars have accepted the tradition that Aisha was nine years old when the marriage was consummated. This has in turn led critics to denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with a girl so young. Such criticisms may often be found in the context of criticizing the entire religion of Islam, though many Muslims may consider any criticism of Muhammad as equivalent. A response to this criticism has been that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that early marriageable ages were an accepted practice in most of the world, before the modern Industrial Era.
However, some Muslim scholars point to other traditions that conflict with those attributed to Aisha in this matter. If the other traditions are right, this would imply that Aisha was either confused in her dating, was exaggerating her youth at marriage, or that her stories (which were not written down until more than 100 years after her death) had been garbled in transmission. If we believe traditions that say she was post-pubescent when married — extremely likely in light of practices in other societies where early marriage is common — then these other traditions, from Ibn Ishaq and Tabari and others, seem much more convincing.
From the viewpoint of the Islamic clergy, the ulema, this explanation, while relieving them of one difficulty, poses another. It values the biographical and historical literature, the sira, over the canonical hadith, or oral traditions accepted by the ulema. However, anything that threatens the value of the hadith, and especially hadith narrated by Aisha, threatens the whole elaborate structure of Islamic law, or sharia. The Shi'a version of sharia is less at risk in this one instance, as the Shi'a deprecate anything sourced to Aisha.
Liberal Muslims do not see any problem with saving Muhammad's character at the expense of traditionalism. Conservative Muslims, and the ulema, tend to embrace the "early puberty" theories.
mcrocket said:
Well.. first off I apoligize if I did get you upset. It was not my intention.
And second: no he is not my role model either. And I do hate him as much as I hate Jesus Christ.
Third: What I wanted to say with my replies was that a question of death penalty is depending on the future and history. Death penalty was accepted thousands ago, and maybe accepted again in thousand years. And by thinking so you create a depth in the discussion which might be necessary to really give it a thought.
Fourth: People say we learn from history. Hitler killed several thousands of soldiers and civilians in a week. Now we kill several hundred thousands in a week by ethnic cleansing. An improvement by 100 times.
Every day for those people is a death penalty day. If the cost for protecting 10 people is killing one murder, would that be justified? One of the basic bricks of democracy is that all individuals have the same right to life no matter their crime? Does that work in reality?
Opatagio said:
Well. I was wrong. I thought he was your saviour and that you were going to rain down holy war on me.
No. I was not offended. I thought I offended you.
BTW. I think I admire what you are saying.
But in all honesty, it is kinda going over my head. I am not exactly sure what your point is.
Maybe it's me.
Sorry but for war criminals, murderers, terrorists, rapists and drug dealers, I don't see another solution than death penalty. In France, some monsters are paroled when they shouldn't be. And who banned death in France? Socialists in 1981. I am for death penalty in these cases so we are sure that these monsters will never see the day again and we won't have to spend our money for feeding them and caring of them when they have blood on hands. Eichmann was a criminal, he was hanged and that is normal. Zero Tolerance for people who kill or murderate deliberately.
Personally I am against the death penalty, it just seem more of a tool of vengeance than justice. There also arises the issue of what happens if new evidence finds the person innocent later on. It might not be good to be locked in prison all that time, but at least you perhaps could get out someday. If you were killed by the state what are they going to do say, "oh we're sorry but your dead now". I believe that people are only allowed to kill in self defense, and if somebody is locked up then there isn't a need to kill them. The chances of breaking out of prison are extremely rare. At one point a long time ago executing people might have been necessary, you never could know when they could get a bunch of there friends to break him out of some of the primitive prisons with poor security. Now we don't have to worry about that. Only the most powerful and influential people that might have the resources to break out and would have to be executed, and there probably isn't anybody like that right now. Now I am not saying we don't technically have the right to execute people, because we do. I just would like to see it ended.
Anonymous2
Cums here often!
Jagger69 said:
You can't just take these two things into account IMO - the murder rate and the existence of the death penalty (BTW not nearly everywhere in the country), as there are quite a number of other aspects factoring in on the comparatively high murder rate. Which in turn isn't even that high compared to other countries.
I'm absolutely for the death penalty. Not for reasons of "an eye for an eye" or the scare-away factor. My reason is rather simple: If you committ atrocities of the worst kind, you are willingly and voluntarily putting yourself outside of a society's conventions, rules, and values. You decide you reject this set of values for yourself. So what gives you the right to return into this very society? Why would its members want you back after you declared you give a shit about it by what you did?
Apart from all that: Check the success rates for long term jail sentences and / or psychological treatment of violent criminals. That's not really an attractive alternative IMO. :2 cents:
jdb67
Fuck the rest, Freeones is the best!
Vegas Yankee said:
Exellent Post!!!!
I am for the death penalty as well. in addition to Vegas Yankee's post, I would argue economics. If an Individual is found guilty of an attrosity such as Murder, Rape, Pedophillia and the like and it is deemed that the Individual should be confined for the term of their natural life with no hope of Parole, What purpose does it serve to spend 50k+ a year of taxpayers money on keeping this type of scum alive???
They will never released... They have no hope of rehabilitation...
Their Victims are dead or scarred for life....
The money wasted on these criminals could be better spent in the comunities that they have rejected.
what is the point??? :dunno:
darkwarrior3007
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
I'm against the death penalty. I don't believe any human being has absolutely any right to execute anybody. The death penalty is very flawed. Right now there are innocent people on death row hoping that dna evidence sets them free. Unfortuately not all of them are set free and it's only after their death that they are cleared. Before anyone else says it, for every innocent person on death row there are many more who actually deserve to be there. However like I said our system is flawed. There shouldn't be innocent people on death row. What I think our government should do is adopt a true life imprisonment sentence. This way if new evidence is found then the innocent will go free and the guilty will die in prison. Yes I know, this too could be flawed but I think is much better than an actual death penalty.
jdb67
Fuck the rest, Freeones is the best!
mcrocket said:
The point would be to reserve this type of Punishment for those that are Guilty!!! Those that were caught in the act!!! those that freely admitted that they committed the crime!!!
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is IMO a lousy term.
The Evidence has to be concrete!!!
