Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBKing
me283 is, again, grossly ignorant of the facts of the case he's trying to make, which unfortunately isn't surprising if you just read the headlines and listen to the Government. You can see why they want to lock people up without trial or evidence if the trials are going to be this embarrassing and it's so obvious they're framing innocent people.
|
Unfortunately, as neither you nor I were there, and probably neither of us was in court for the trial, we both have to rely upon what is reported. Obviously our sources are different. I'm not sure why you accuse me of being "ignorant of the facts" when we are both leaning towards what we have seen or heard reported. Or were you there?
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBKing
Apart from 'arrestation' not being a word, this is true. He's a brutal murderer, not a terrorist, as I said earlier in the thread. Talking of which:
|
"Arrestation" is a word that I have heard used. I could have used "arresting" in the passive gerundive if you prefer, or if you which to be pedantic?
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBKing
I think this is the first mention of Hitler in this thread. I thereby declare that the conditions for Godwin's Law have been met and that this discussion is over, and me283 has lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law |
Well, if you are looking for a "win" then good luck to you. I'm on here to discuss and debate, not to score points. But that probably says more about you than it does about me...
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cookie_365
Hang on, I think we're arguing at cross purposes.
My point is that killing is just wrong. I accept that there are times when it's, well, not 'right' but tolerable when it's the only way to stop more people being killed, (WWII, Iraq etc, see previous caveats).
But I'm disgusted by the notion of killing someone for fun or for vengeance.
Announcing that someone is 'sub-human' and therefore a suitable target for murder is just sick. Anyone who does that is no better than the person they want to kill. Sub-human perhaps?
Look at Israel/Palestine:
A Palestinian murders an Israeli. Why?
Because an Israeli murdered a Palestinian. Why?
Because a Palestinian murdered an Israeli. Why?
Because an Israeli murdered a Palestinian. Why?
Because a Palestinian murdered an Israeli. Why?
etc etc etc.
|
I don't disagree with you, and the Israeli/Palestinian concept is a very good analogy, but I don't think it quite fits here. What if, for example, you were to say:
Man kills 1000 innocent people and maims 300 more; he goes to court and gets a jail term; 15 years later he gets out and decides to exact revenge by killing as many more as possible... GThe numbers are theoretical, but the concept isn't.
And I oppose vengeance killing with a... vengeance I suppose
. But I truly believe that the death sentence not only removes the lowest element from society, but also deters others from crossing the line into that element.
Join CF
You are here: 
