(06-21-2018 08:14 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  When I was in high school we were assigned to write a paper on a single issue and make a case for it, pro or con.

I wrote my paper on the death penalty; I said it needs to be expanded to include child molesters, rapists, and in some extreme cases, animal abuse.

Left wing teacher gave me a C. Said she didn't appreciate my "soapbox rant" and that it was "disturbing". Laughed my ass off. Last day of school I make a point to see her and tell her that if it was her intent to crush my spirit that she failed miserably.

Today,
You’d be arrested.

Best HS teacher I had was a far left hippy. He and I, to the exclusion of the entire rest of the class, argued near daily.

I think everyone, including my friend Ronnie, all got A’s that report card.

Not a lot else was ever done for an entire school year.

A lot of them would just sit in the back of the room and blaze up a bowl...

Seems times have changed

Really ? Are they that Orwellian today that a student would be arrested for telling a vindictive teacher off ? Wow. Glad I don't have kids then.

I also had a run in with another left wing hack teacher the summer after I graduated. (This one was worse though. He taunted me every day my Junior year. Committed libel and slander against me on a daily basis. Got so bad that the school eventually got involved and he was reprimanded.)

I saw him at a movie theater. He saw me, started talking ****, and being full of piss and vinegar as an 18 year old, well, I cussed him out in the movie theater lobby. Used the command voice and everything. Called him every name I could think of. Even made up some more. Almost got into a fight right there and then. Granted, I shouldn't have done it - but he shouldn't have made my life so miserable that I actually thought of taking my own life at a few spots. Yeah, he was that abusive.

(06-21-2018 06:41 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  When I was in high school we were assigned to write a paper on a single issue and make a case for it, pro or con.

I wrote my paper on the death penalty; I said it needs to be expanded to include child molesters, rapists, and in some extreme cases, animal abuse.

Left wing teacher gave me a C. Said she didn't appreciate my "soapbox rant" and that it was "disturbing". Laughed my ass off. Last day of school I make a point to see her and tell her that if it was her intent to crush my spirit that she failed miserably.

I had a very similar high school experience, only from the opposite standpoint.

I grew up in a very liberal New York suburban town. In an elective government class, our teacher assigned to us controversial topics to be debated, pro and con. At the end of the debate, the class would vote on who won.

I got lucky (so I thought), and was picked from a bunch of willing volunteers to handle the "con" side of the death penalty debate. My opponent, Robert W., was the only one willing to accept the "pro" side of that debate. He was an unpopular kid, and viewed as weird for his vocal support of all sorts of right-wing positions. (The rumor was that he had written a letter to the Utah governor in 1976, volunteering to serve on the Gary Gilmore firing squad. It's probably not true, but he never outright denied it.)

I went into that debate brimming with confidence. There was no way that I could lose.

And I promptly proceeded to get my butt handed to me. Halfway through the debate, the government teacher essentially took over, and started debating Robert W. on my behalf. I was left to just stand there and watch it happen.

At the end, I won by a very close vote of my classmates. But I knew that I had lost -- badly. It also, for the first time, made me stop and think carefully about an issue instead of just going with the accepted position on a spoon-fed basis.

I never thanked Robert W. for that experience. I should have.

So where do you stand today?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-20-2018 11:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:13 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Extreme pain? On fentanyl? Yah OKAY. Good luck arguing that. Valium and fentanyl will knock this guy out before you can say wompwomp.


That being said... I'm against the death penalty In its entirety.

For infants too?

Am I against infant death penalties? Yes. But if you're looking for my abortion stance you'll need to ask for that.

I think that my current state (Virginia) has it about right: death penalty for the most predatory criminals, but subject to lots and lots of procedural protections.

If a state is going to be in the business of killing its citizens, there should be multiple layers of protections (despite the high costs and extreme delays) of making certain that we are doing it 100% correctly.

(06-20-2018 08:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I have zero problem with the death penalty

I do ...

STATE SANCTIONED MURDER

(06-21-2018 11:06 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:13 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Extreme pain? On fentanyl? Yah OKAY. Good luck arguing that. Valium and fentanyl will knock this guy out before you can say wompwomp.


That being said... I'm against the death penalty In its entirety.

For infants too?

Am I against infant death penalties? Yes. But if you're looking for my abortion stance you'll need to ask for that.

That's exactly what I asked. If it is immoral (I'm just guessing that is your rationale) to take the life of someone who is guilty of murder, what about the life of someone who is literally innocent of everything imaginable?

(06-21-2018 01:16 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 11:06 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:13 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Extreme pain? On fentanyl? Yah OKAY. Good luck arguing that. Valium and fentanyl will knock this guy out before you can say wompwomp.


That being said... I'm against the death penalty In its entirety.

For infants too?

Am I against infant death penalties? Yes. But if you're looking for my abortion stance you'll need to ask for that.

That's exactly what I asked. If it is immoral (I'm just guessing that is your rationale) to take the life of someone who is guilty of murder, what about the life of someone who is literally innocent of everything imaginable?

You didn't ask me, but since I'm having a slow afternoon I will chip in my two cents anyway.

Throughout history, societies have been making determinations on the value of human life. When is it protected? When is it not?

There are many situations in which current American society regularly makes decisions that have a direct impact upon someone's life:

* When it is appropriate to pull the plug on someone not able to sustain life unassisted?
* Whether to fund the development and availability of "orphan drugs", which are proven to save lives but are too expensive to justify the small incidence of whatever condition or disease they are known to treat.
* How much in public funds to set aside for established live-saving infrastructure -- guardrails, sea walls emergency services, etc.?
* Whether to go to war, which will invariably costs some unknown number of brave lives.
* The death penalty.
* Abortion.

For most people, life is precious. But it is only the last two that seem to bring out the absolutists. Why is that?

Because it is the two places in which it is the gov't that is making the direct life-death decision. In the case of the death penalty, it is the government that is actually administering the event. In the case of abortion, it is the government (per Roe v. Wade) saying that its citizens have no say whatsoever in requiring the mother to bring her child to birth past the point of "viability".

Those are, and will remain, very tough issues: ones which should always be open to continuing debate. If you are an absolutist on either one, you (in my opinion) are not contributing as intelligently as you should to the debate.

Tell us why the life of a proven predatory sicko is worth a dime of taxpayer dollars.

Tell us why a just-conceived egg is a life for which you can compel a mother, however she became pregnant, to carry to term.

Fentanyl, versed, and cisatracurium will kill the guy dead just fine. Just ask any anesthesiologist, or Tom Petty and Prince.

(06-21-2018 01:16 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 11:06 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:13 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Extreme pain? On fentanyl? Yah OKAY. Good luck arguing that. Valium and fentanyl will knock this guy out before you can say wompwomp.


That being said... I'm against the death penalty In its entirety.

For infants too?

Am I against infant death penalties? Yes. But if you're looking for my abortion stance you'll need to ask for that.

That's exactly what I asked. If it is immoral (I'm just guessing that is your rationale) to take the life of someone who is guilty of murder, what about the life of someone who is literally innocent of everything imaginable?

I'm also against the death penalty for fiscal reasons and killing of people innocent of the crimes they are convicted of.

I am against killing of innocent infants (which are what... newborn~1month to 1 years old?).

(06-21-2018 05:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Bring back public hangings.

Right there with ya!

Rope is cheaper than bullets or injections. Best part is you can reuse the rope!

Hell, I'd go a step further and say put it on TV so all the scumbags can see what they have to look forward to if they kill someone.

(06-21-2018 01:39 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 01:16 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 11:06 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:18 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 11:13 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Extreme pain? On fentanyl? Yah OKAY. Good luck arguing that. Valium and fentanyl will knock this guy out before you can say wompwomp.


That being said... I'm against the death penalty In its entirety.

For infants too?

Am I against infant death penalties? Yes. But if you're looking for my abortion stance you'll need to ask for that.

That's exactly what I asked. If it is immoral (I'm just guessing that is your rationale) to take the life of someone who is guilty of murder, what about the life of someone who is literally innocent of everything imaginable?

You didn't ask me, but since I'm having a slow afternoon I will chip in my two cents anyway.

Throughout history, societies have been making determinations on the value of human life. When is it protected? When is it not?

There are many situations in which current American society regularly makes decisions that have a direct impact upon someone's life:

* When it is appropriate to pull the plug on someone not able to sustain life unassisted?
* Whether to fund the development and availability of "orphan drugs", which are proven to save lives but are too expensive to justify the small incidence of whatever condition or disease they are known to treat.
* How much in public funds to set aside for established live-saving infrastructure -- guardrails, sea walls emergency services, etc.?
* Whether to go to war, which will invariably costs some unknown number of brave lives.
* The death penalty.
* Abortion.

For most people, life is precious. But it is only the last two that seem to bring out the absolutists. Why is that?

Because it is the two places in which it is the gov't that is making the direct life-death decision. In the case of the death penalty, it is the government that is actually administering the event. In the case of abortion, it is the government (per Roe v. Wade) saying that its citizens have no say whatsoever in requiring the mother to bring her child to birth past the point of "viability".

Those are, and will remain, very tough issues: ones which should always be open to continuing debate. If you are an absolutist on either one, you (in my opinion) are not contributing as intelligently as you should to the debate.

Tell us why the life of a proven predatory sicko is worth a dime of taxpayer dollars.

Tell us why a just-conceived egg is a life for which you can compel a mother, however she became pregnant, to carry to term.

That’s a pretty deep dive, but very well stated.

I’m not an absolutist on either, and I credit my (advancing) age and frankly the lovely Mrs. dunk for tempering my thoughts a bit.

I used to be a “line em up, let the scumbags have it”, then realized how poorly and often un-uniformly the DP is meted out.

A cop killer? Or similar? A couple of cold blooded thugs like who slaughtered the Harvey family some years ago? Or the stupid-ass I-95 snipers, that type?

Kill em and kill em quick.

Lot of grayish areas on many (most) other instances.

Abortion, was once a staunch opponent under any circumstances, excepting rape, incest, legit health of the mother. My wife has had to deal with folks in all 3 situations,and the aftermath.

I’m now in the camp with one of a very few things I agree with the Bubba on-
Safe, legal and RARE.

Needs to be about changing the attitudes, hearts and culture, not making criminals out of people.

Scum like Goznell, yea, that’s some seriously criminal, unethical and immoral schit. Lock his asss up, Bigly.

The local Gyne doing it safe legal and rare, no.

$.02