Politics - your views

[Hunchman801]

I'm against the death penalty, even for terrorists, because this is what differentiates us from them, we have respect for human lives. On the other hand, I believe there is no hope of rehabilitation for them and they should be kept in isolation with no possibility of ever getting out of jail (they can be with others incarcerated for life, but they must not be able to spread their madness by communicating with anyone else).

[incognito]

I'm against the death penalty, even for terrorists, because this is what differentiates us from them,

They kill innocent people in a direct manner, ain't it enough for differenciation?

We have respect for human lives.

They're subhuman, no respect should be given to them.

they must not be able to spread their madness by communicating with anyone else).

Which is why they have to be silenced, by any given method, but if by this you mean making them prisoner of their own body by medical means and keep them alive then I can only approve.

[RibShark]

I'm against the death penalty. Any justice system will unfortunately incarcerate innocent people on rare occasions, and this is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to a person in my opinion. Having the death penalty means that should it be discovered at a later date that a person is innocent, their life may have already been taken, which is unacceptable. In addition, I believe that any person, terrorist, murderer, etc... is or will be in the future capable of reform. The reform might require medical treatment in the case of mental illness, but I'm confident that as research into mental illness increases more and more of these people will be able to be cured. For this reason I also think that prisons should be less about punishment, and more about reform. The death penalty is the opposite to this: a punishment that gives no chance of reform. The current system in many countries is leading to further crime and violence within the prisons themselves due to the treatment of inmates and the conditions of the prisons, and is therefore stopping people who have the chance to reform themselves from doing so.

[Hunchman801]

They kill innocent people in a direct manner, ain't it enough for differenciation?

What about the people they call indirectly (whatever you mean by that)?

They're subhuman, no respect should be given to them.

Funny, that's exactly what they think of you. Mind to explain the difference?

The current system in many countries is leading to further crime and violence within the prisons themselves due to the treatment of inmates and the conditions of the prisons, and is therefore stopping people who have the chance to reform themselves from doing so.

I think it's mostly the fact that inmates are in contact with each other, which is a bad influence on them. More isolation might just be the solution.

[Keane]

We have respect for human lives.

They're subhuman, no respect should be given to them

they must not be able to spread their madness by communicating with anyone else).

Which is why they have to be silenced, by any given method, but if by this you mean making them prisoner of their own body by medical means and keep them alive then I can only approve.

You're contradicting yourself, you can't assume the higher moral ground and then impose torture. I don't know how anyone can argue first-world countries should be pouring money into upholding facilities where they intentionally turn inmates into shit-flinging insane people, literally only for the purpose of "it makes me feel good" revenge.

Life in prison is heavy enough a sentence for worst-case people. You're locking someone up in a small, enclosed space, forcing them to adhere to strict rules, and their access to outlets is very limited.

I think it's mostly the fact that inmates are in contact with each other, which is a bad influence on them. More isolation might just be the solution.

You can keep inmates orderly as long as the punishment for misbehaviour is rigorous enough. Obviously, life sentence inmates would have to be kept in a separate place.

[Hunchman801]

You can keep inmates orderly as long as the punishment for misbehaviour is rigorous enough.

I'm not sure that's enough. By the time they get out, a good part if not most of their acquaintances and possibly friends will be ex-convicts too, which is very likely to take them down the same road again.

[incognito]

You're contradicting yourself, you can't assume the higher moral ground and then impose torture. I don't know how anyone can argue first-world countries should be pouring money into upholding facilities where they intentionally turn inmates into shit-flinging insane people, literally only for the purpose of "it makes me feel good" revenge.

I never claimed to have any moral as far as I'm aware, did I ? In addition silencing individuals can be a good alternative for death penalty and only make prisons more secure. I was just answering Humch's post whose against death penalty.

They kill innocent people in a direct manner, ain't it enough for differenciation?

What about the people they call indirectly (whatever you mean by that)?

A direct kill, is kiling someone yourself with the will of doing it, an indirect kill is what we call "collateral damage" it isn't in anyway someone's attention, just the consequence of being unable to teach a nuke to not hit civies.

They're subhuman, no respect should be given to them.

Funny, that's exactly what they think of you. Mind to explain the difference?

For the only reason that I never even contemplated the idea of committing a genocide of innocents for racial or religious purposes.

You can keep inmates orderly as long as the punishment for misbehaviour is rigorous enough.

I'm not sure that's enough. By the time they get out, a good part if not most of their acquaintances and possibly friends will be ex-convicts too, which is very likely to take them down the same road again.

Thus reminds me of that Norwegian psycho who said :

When I'll get out of here I'll do it again.

This pretty much proves what you said and why death penalty is indeed necessary in that kind of circumstances.

[Hunchman801]

A direct kill, is kiling someone yourself with the will of doing it, an indirect kill is what we call "collateral damage" it isn't in anyway someone's attention, just the consequence of being unable to teach a nuke to not hit civies.

According to your definition, executing someone is a direct kill then. You're just contradicting yourself.

For the only reason that I never even contemplated the idea of committing a genocide of innocents for racial or religious purposes.

How do you define who's innocent? We could keep going for hours, everything you say is subjective.

This pretty much proves what you said and why death penalty is indeed necessary in that kind of circumstances.

Why, if they never get out?

[incognito]

A direct kill, is kiling someone yourself with the will of doing it, an indirect kill is what we call "collateral damage" it isn't in anyway someone's attention, just the consequence of being unable to teach a nuke to not hit civies.

According to your definition, executing someone is a direct kill then. You're just contradicting yourself.

I don't, I talked about civilians. How are they even civilians?

This pretty much proves what you said and why death penalty is indeed necessary in that kind of circumstances.

Why, if they never get out?

Murphy's law.

For the only reason that I never even contemplated the idea of committing a genocide of innocents for racial or religious purposes.

How do you define who's innocent? We could keep going for hours, everything you say is subjective.

So for you grenading and shooting a crowd of civilians should be considered as legitimate? I start having trouble understanding you.

[Keane]

I never claimed to have any moral as far as I'm aware, did I ? In addition silencing individuals can be a good alternative for death penalty and only make prisons more secure.

This pretty much proves what you said and why death penalty is indeed necessary in that kind of circumstances.

Thus reminds me of that Dutch cuckboy who said:

anyone put on death row isnt gonna get out of prison wtf theyre sentence for life in high-security prisons

[Hunchman801]

This discussion is going nowhere. I get your point but I simply disagree.

Murphy's law.

(inb4 incog "i got booned" vid)

[Xenon]

Could that be the law that dictates if you read the story, you find your way out? He might have a point, there is a lot of fruit in understanding problems can stem from one's background and upbringing.

[Adsolution]

They kill innocent people in a direct manner, ain't it enough for differenciation?

What about killing a terrorist incapable of harming anyone is any less direct?

They're subhuman,

That's literally not true. That's like saying that a wolf is sub-wolf because they may kill other wolves. We have a society that is in extreme opposition to murder, but society is still subjective, simply given the fact that it's constantly changing.

no respect should be given to them.

It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of having absolute, equal laws with no subjectivity in place unless absolutely necessary. Whether or not someone should be executed is completely subjective and does not help anyone or anything, and is therefore an unnecessary evil.

Which is why they have to be silenced

You know it isn't very difficult to stop prisoners from communicating with the outside world, right?

I don't, I talked about civilians. How are they even civilians?

So it's okay for anyone to go and murder prisoners for some reason? Additionally:

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

It's actually totally logical, hence why it's such a good quote.

Murphy's law.

According to the data actually, no. The number of reformed murderers heavily outweighs the number that have escaped from prison.

So for you grenading and shooting a crowd of civilians should be considered as legitimate? I start having trouble understanding you.

Let's say everyone in the crowd was gay, and the attacker genuinely felt that sodomy was worse than murder. In their eyes, they've done a good thing, just like how in your eyes, killing a terrorist is a good thing. If we ever want to settle this dispute, the only possible resolve is to omit all subjectivity, which leaves us with condemning killing of any kind - incidentally, the same result.

Remember, modern human society didn't even frown upon murder until as recently as a few thousand years ago.

[Keane]

Can grandmaster keanis gain access to the OP post? I wanna make a new poll.

[Master]

Can grandmaster keanis gain access to the OP post? I wanna make a new poll.

Done, you should now be the OP, and have the option to change the polls at your own leisure.

[Xenon]

Shame my Murphy joke didn't get a comment. If you can't make a Murphy joke on a Rayman forum, where can you?

[PluMGMK]

Part of the problem there might be that the PH was changed to an F before Rayman 2 was even released!

[Xenon]

As if that was going to stop me!

[Keane]

we'll get back to the polls but I think for know we wanna talk about the BREAKING NEWS of trump launching 59 tomahawks on the Syrian government because he's an autistic orangutan.

Most importantly I think is how the relationship between the US & Russia unfolds from here on, I thought trying to protect those relations was one of the few things Trump was actually right on so much that I edged towards saying a Trump presidency would be worth the shit just because, you don't want a fucking world war. But then Trump started being fidgety when he got into office and I was worried he'd pull something retarded and now here we go. Let's all hope Putin is the bigger guy here and, whatever probably unlikable course of action he takes it's not escalating into any of that. I don't think that'll happen, but I also think the potential lines are very clear right now and seeing Iran go "yea russia! and Israel "yea US!", it's pretty spooks. I think Netanyahu is just like a skeleton and there's no organs or brain or anything else, he's just like a hollow little sack.

But putting the x-treme meemees aside for a sec, what a fucking monstrosity of a situation for the people in Syria. It looks like it's gonna be the Iraq war all over again - the claims that this was provoked by Assad carrying out chemical attacks on his own people sound very sketchy to me (He just won, and obviously it would have big consequences for him, I don't see any reason why he would do that), and of course it conveniently earns US corporations a ton of money, and how coincidental is it that the new administration has so far done nothing but suck up to those corporations. We're putting potentially thousands of lives in danger if this escalates to an intervention (which it almost certainly will), just so McBillionaire can make another fucking dime? I find it very hard to believe this was an effort taken because, of course, the Trump administration simply "cared about the people", and they have to enter to overthrow the evil dictator! Nevermind that the same administration takes no issue with proposing less healthcare for its own country, or that privacy rights can be rolled back with a little bit of bribing, or that Trump droned a couple kids a few weeks ago, or that their big friend Saudi Arabia is actively slaughtering civilians and Trump is buddy-buddy with them - this, this goes too far! He had to act! Saudi violating human rights and murdering Yemeni children is fine but, this Syria story got to him!

The only good thing I'm seeing is that many prominent Republican figures are rightfully calling shit on Trumpster and I have to give a little nudge of credit to Rand Paul (senator who you eurotresh don't know) to stand his ground and be the first to oppose it. On the other hand, fucking shame on all the gay black cunts who are praising this. Finally Hillary and Trump show some bipartisanship! And Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi too, who if you don't know them are two of the three leading figures of the Democratic party right now, and are defending Trump for his decision. Just on a quick siderant, I gotta point out how awful the Democrats are right now:

- Hillary lost the elections due to workers who didn't want her shitty trade deals. They double down on them and insult Trump for not signing the trade deal they lost thousands of votes over in key areas.

- They elected Tom Perez for their Chairman, who brings nothing to the table besides the status quo. He's just a fucking word salad, he can talk for 20-30 minutes straight without mentioning a single policy, a single promise or goal, all he does is basically go "Trump is bad" and that's supposed to win us over somehow.

- Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US and they're trying to deny and oppose him, persistently pretending people don't want his agenda and there's this magical silent majority out there. They actually took the time to try and pump up Hillary's daughter for a congress run, as if anyone was so excited for Hillary's spoiled rich daughter (who never worked a real job and has basically no history other than being rich and enjoying that) to sweep up the millennial vote - She's young, kids, and you're young, whattaya mean you want policies? Healthcare? College? Yeah you all voted for 75-year-old unknown Bernie Sanders, but did Bernie have Beyonce at his rallies?! Good thing the Democratic party thinks young people are impressionable autists, I wonder if disavowing them had any links to Hillary's loss.

Anyway, that's my shtick. I'm just so fucking angery over the whole situation, everything about it feels so corrupt and backwards and the amount of people that are gonna have to take the hit for it, and the potential danger everyone is being put it right now, all because a couple jaded old fucks and an impulsive reality TV host can't think before they act. There needs to be some form of radical takeover to resolve the situation, especially considering that if Trump hadn't done it, Hillary would've, so either way this was set in stone.

[Adsolution]

- They elected Tom Perez for their Chairman, who brings nothing to the table besides the status quo. He's just a fucking word salad, he can talk for 20-30 minutes straight without mentioning a single policy, a single promise or goal, all he does is basically go "Trump is bad" and that's supposed to win us over somehow.

and an impulsive reality TV host

hueh hrey Kyle