I wish people had such verbose discussions on movies here...
Terrorists Should Be Treated As Enemy Combatants
States without the Death Penalty have had consistently lower murder rates:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre...r-murder-rates
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre...r-murder-rates
X
Favorite Movies
His most recent, Snowden, was about 15% quality, but 85% mediocrity.
He definitely has seen better days.
He definitely has seen better days.
X
Favorite Movies
Think we should stop humouring CA, he is CA it's ridiculous calling him Des.
X
Favorite Movies
People have frequently been observed non stop rambling on to themselves in Bedlam
If your response to seeing your arguments meticulously picked apart is functionally "wall of text lol", then you forfeit the debate. And if your response to THIS is functionally "this isn't a game lol", then you misrepresent my intentions. I'm not here to "win debates", I'm here to voice my dissent. You're pitching an idea, I'm criticizing it, that's how these sorts of discussion threads work. If my criticisms exhaust you, perhaps it's because you don't have rebuttals for them.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The fact is that you’ve either changed your dialogue with me
Originally Posted by I. Rex
or just chosen to be purposefully enigmatic for the fun of it.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
When you started this discussion, you said you wanted guys like this who were obviously guilty killed “while they are in custody”.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
That, to me, sounds fundamentally unconstitutional.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Now you are saying oh no you would still want it done in a constitutional way with trial and representation and the whole nine yards but cheaper and much faster so that it wouldn’t cost you a cent.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Well why not make your point of view clear from the beginning and spit out exactly what you mean rather than either baiting and switching your positions or shrouding them with language that seems clearly inconsistent with someone who believes in our Constitutional rights?
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
Originally Posted by I. Rex
What kind of double talk nonsense is that? I just quoted you the part of the Constitution where it mentions our “right to life”. And no where in the Constitution does it divide rights into “positive” or negative” so spare me your theoretical libertarian gobbledygook.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
These are not things the Constitution grants you, these are things the Constitutions ensures can't be taken away, at least not without "due process of law". A "right to life" can be connotated in two ways:
1.) As a negative right: You have a life, and actions which jeopardize your life violate your right to life.
2.) As a positive right: You have a life, and actions which fail to preserve your life violate your right to life.
Leaving aside the condition that these rights are ultimately subordinate to that which we call "due process", which destroys your argument already anyway, the point I'm making here is that DESPITE THAT, the Constitution establishes Americans a negative right to life, meaning the government is under no obligation to prevent you from dying, and that includes sustaining you in prison.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
So as stupid as this line of reasoning is, Im just curious how you explain publicly funded education, social security, medicare and medicaid and unemployment benefits if we have no “positive” rights in our Constitution or laws?
And again, even were I to accept that there is a legal precedent for positive rights guaranteeing Americans education, social security, medicare, etc. I would reject them. The topic is about what should be done, not what can currently legally can be done.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And how actively killing someone isn’t a violation of someones “negative” rights?
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
You are, quite frankly, WILDLY mistaken if you believe merely killing people is unconstitutional.
I'm making a point to bold, size up, redden, and underline these points because we've gone over them multiple times now and it seems as though you've never read them.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Or were you just planning on letting them starve to death?
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Why do you continue to choose to ignore that my point of view isn’t about emotion but about what I feel is best for society? Just like you say yours is.
Personally, I think it more charitable to assume ignorance over malice, but provided how many times I've had to correct your casual dismissals and misrepresentation of my arguments, it's not looking very probable.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
So you are admitting to choosing to kill 1 person over keeping 100 innocent people alive.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you realize youre eventually going to run out of people right?
Even if killing that one person fails to deter another such person from committing the same crime, killing that person eliminates a person that has proven they will commit said crime. Net reduction in terrorists: 1.
Your argument here appears to be that reducing the number of terrorists paradoxically increases the number of terrorists.
How much credit do you TRULY believe I should give that claim? How many different ways do you think I can pick apart that claim leaving aside the complete lack of evidence for it?
You seem to be favorable towards taking things to their logical conclusion, so what did you say when I asked?:
"by that logic you might as well disband your police and military and let everybody walk all over you."
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Because putting criminals in jail is the same as letting them “walk all over you”.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But killing all those single terrorists is still somehow better for society even though it would result in the deaths of all members of that society according to the math in your example.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Glad you don’t run things. Or teach math.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
You’ve ALSO been objecting to how we currently carry out our particular brand of capital punishment.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And who exactly should be killed. Are you now saying you are fine with how our system works
Originally Posted by I. Rex
and would accept that process as long as it results in a potential death
Originally Posted by I. Rex
sentence for them? And that its ONLY for "mass murdering terrorists"?
I don't know how you get any of that from the claim that capital punishment is constitutional or that we're only talking about mass murdering terrorists... because that's the topic.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
HOW? Why do you keep dodging that question?
"You can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent."
I'm not dodging the question, it is LITERALLY constitutional to kill people following due process, it is LITERALLY in the same friggen' paragraph you posted:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I keep pointing at this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and you still don't get it, I will spell it out for you as absolutely clear as anyone could conceivably be:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, [...] without due process of law;"
There are two parts here:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life,"
This is what you can't do.
"without due process of law;"
This is why you can't do it.
This establishes a condition under which you can't do a thing. It is not saying that you can't kill people PERIOD... it is saying you can't kill people without due process of law. Implying, by process of elimination, that you can kill people with due process of law.
I seriously don't know how I can make this any clearer.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
What is your proposal to accomplish this?
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And don’t give me this “reform the government” nonsense. That’s not an answer. I want to know how you see the process of killing criminals in custody, step by step, such that it stays within Constitutional boundaries AND is satisfactory to your desire not to provide any public funding to the process at all?
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But it does come down to a vote. For our elected officials, remember? It’s a democracy.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And that’s fine that you would vote that way but need I remind you what percentage of the vote libertarian candidates get generally?
Originally Posted by I. Rex
So you’ve had your vote and you’ve lost. You can sit down now. Oh and you can keep paying your taxes too.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
So you are once again shrugging off the HOW question and just basically saying “theoretically if execution was super cheap AND Constitutional…”? That’s fine.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
But at that point, as Ive stated, it becomes simply a discussion about capital punishment. Again, Im happy to have that discussion with you
Originally Posted by I. Rex
but not in the context of a discussion where doing so would let you ignore the paramount issue of explaining to me how things would work out Constitutionally under your plan.
"How can you sit without your butt touching the floor using a chair?"
"I dunno, Rex, it's a real brain teaser."
Originally Posted by I. Rex
Not sure if arguing with people on a movie message board will ever turn the tide in this country from its current path to the one you want, my friend.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
And I learned long ago you cant argue someones mind into changing.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
That’s not how human psychology works.
I wasted all this time explaining my criticisms in detail only for you to go:
"Why didn't you just TELL ME your argument was exactly what you said it was three times already? Your opinions are unpopular so they don't matter, I'm going to continue enabling this country to rob hardworking people like you *winky face*. Oh BTW I've been ignoring your arguments this entire discussion because minds don't change lol."
Brilliant.
Originally Posted by I. Rex
They’ll only see your ideas as more and more ill informed because it contrasts with their beliefs. If you really want to change minds, you have to get on their side first. Then you can potentially have some influence. But nobody seems to do that anymore.
Last edited by Omnizoa; 11-06-17 at 04:22 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I have to ask, when are psychotics not treated as enemy combatantare you even interested in movies? You reminde of the last guy who posted nothing but terrorism. Soon gets pretty obvious you have no interest in anything else. And are you always an angry Yosemite Sam waving your guns above your head and stomping
Never mind that. OMG a super model male nurse just walked into my hospital cell block. Died and went to heaven.
Never mind that. OMG a super model male nurse just walked into my hospital cell block. Died and went to heaven.
I'd like to state, for the record, that I am aware of the tone of my last post and was aware of the New Rules for Controversial Topics before I posted it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Judging by her avatar, it's no different than some individuals of Mexican heritage flying Mexican flags at out national sports events, such as boxing events that include Mexican fighters ( what makes it even worse is that they are American )
I was horrified by the behavior of this woman a few years back.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
Judging by her avatar ...
I started this thread primarily for Americans living in America, because of a recent event that occurred on American soil.
I am very Italian ....
I'd like to state, for the record, that I am aware of the tone of my last post and was aware of the New Rules for Controversial Topics before I posted it.
Matey, you love words and words sure as hell adore you. Kissed by the blarney stone.
A government may maintain custody of somebody throughout a trial, after the death sentence has been passed, and until they are killed.
Fourth time now:
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
"You're talking about handing judicial control to the military and suspending due process based on fallible evidence. Of course I would object. That's just one rationalization away from a police state."
Constitution establishes Americans a negative right to life, meaning the government is under no obligation to prevent you from dying, and that includes sustaining you in prison.
And again, even were I to accept that there is a legal precedent for positive rights guaranteeing Americans education, social security, medicare, etc. I would reject them.
You are, quite frankly, WILDLY mistaken if you believe merely killing people is unconstitutional.
Personally, I think it more charitable to assume ignorance over malice
Your argument here appears to be that reducing the number of terrorists paradoxically increases the number of terrorists.
How much credit do you TRULY believe I should give that claim? How many different ways do you think I can pick apart that claim leaving aside the complete lack of evidence for it?
How much credit do you TRULY believe I should give that claim? How many different ways do you think I can pick apart that claim leaving aside the complete lack of evidence for it?
Oh that's right, you copped out and accused me of making a false equivalence when I've clearly challenged your consistency.
"You can observe due process, kill captives, and remain constitutionally consistent."
I'm not dodging the question, it is LITERALLY constitutional to kill people following due process
This is like asking me to explain how I intend to walk out my front door. I HAVE KEYS.
I'm not against public funding of courts, I'm against prison systems and taxes upon the product of one's labor. There's a big difference.
I am not.
That's the last thing I want to hear at the end of an argument, that's literally admitting you aren't receptive to facts or logic, that I've been talking to a wall this entire ****ing time
you're just talking for the sake of talking.
"Why didn't you just TELL ME your argument was exactly what you said it was three times already? Your opinions are unpopular so they don't matter, I'm going to continue enabling this country to rob hardworking people like you *winky face*. Oh BTW I've been ignoring your arguments this entire discussion because minds don't change lol."
Des: WE SHOULD BURN THE CONSTITUTION, ROUND UP THOSE PEOPLE, TORTURE THEM AND KILL THEM!
I Rex to Des: DON’T RESORT TO THROWING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS AND ACTING LIKE THEM BY LETTING THE STATE COMMIT MURDER!
Omnizoa to I Rex for some reason: but they deserve death and I don’t like paying taxes. And killing is cheaper then not killing. And Im conveniently and cheekily going to tack on this comment in response to your comment to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL killing suggested by Des.
I Rex: Are you talking about Capital Punishment or killing prisoners because you feel like it? Because Capital Punishment isn’t cheaper. And anything else is unconstitutional.
Omnizoa: Im not going to answer this really essential question, Im instead going to copy and paste something I said to Des and then turn around and grumble something about the government needing a complete overhall and that there are WAYS to kill people cheaply… he he he…
I Rex: why didn’t you answer that? It seems like you are implying something sinister and unconstitutional.
Omnizoa: am not! Because <copy paste>. See? Now step aside while I make irrelevant remarks about eating stuff.
I Rex: You still haven’t answered it but you seem to be wanting to have it both ways. Do I have that right? Why not just give me an answer?
Omnizoa: Im going to ignore that once again and say I want to have them killed long before they normally would be executed under the current laws. And Im specifically not going to specify if that means something unconstitutional so that when you ask about it again I can copy and paste and say WHATS WRONG WITH YOU! CANT YOU SEE HOW MY DEBATE WITH DES FOUR PAGES AGO PROVIDES ME A GET OUT OF JAIL CARD ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL THING NO MATTER WHAT CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS I MAKE AFTER?!
I Rex: so… does that mean you want to overturn the current capital punishment system in favor of something else where you get to kill people right away for next to nothing? would this be constitutional?
Omnizoa: <COPY PASTE>! Ha ha!
I Rex: Im still under the impression that youre hinting at something dubious on a constitutional level so Im going to mention how we have a right to life in the Constitution.
Ominzoa: NO WE DON’T! NEGATIVE LIFE IS FULLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF MURDERING CRIMINALS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO HEALTH CARE!! AND KILLING TERRORISTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN KEEPING CIVILIANS ALIVE!
I Rex: No idea what you are talking about or why you think its relevant at all. But now im wondering why arguing against our right to life in response to me asking you repeatedly is your death penalty system constitutional shouldn’t make me think youre continuing to make obfuscations rather than just saying, you know, "yes my concept WOULD BE constitutional and heres how…"
Omnizoa: I CANT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU IF YOU CANT FIGURE OUT WHATS IN MY HEAD BY MY COPYING AND PASTING! IT DOESN’T MATTER IF I REFUSE TO GIVE SPECIFICS OR DIRECTLY ANSWER QUESTIONS! JUST SAYING “DUE PROCESS” IN RESPONSE TO THE WORD “HOW” IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT!
I Rex: Ok you have no idea how to do it do you. You have no actual plan. Youll never convince me with that line of reasoning.
Omnizoa: ARRGH! BUT BY NEVER EXPLAINING HOW MY SYSTEM WORKS IVE BEEN TRYING SO HARD TO GET YOU TO EMBRACE THE CONCPET OF AN UNSPECIFIED METHOD OF KILLING PRISONERS THAT RESULTS IN CIVILIAN DEATHS! AND NOW YOU TELL ME YOU WONT CHANGE YOUR MIND!? WHY!! WHY!! WHY!!!!
There do I have that about right? Give or take a few exasperated phrases and pointless references and dubious examples?
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...
X
Favorite Movies
Can you guys take it outside the house please. I got RSI scrolling through those war and peace novelas. It's not a wooooooooooop competition to see who posts the epicest post you know leave that to angry guy Des
You need to read The U.S. Flag Code. Any resident of the United States can fly a foreign flag on their own property without also flying the American flag.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
There do I have that about right?
Welp, that looks to be about the end of my involvement in this thread.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
"Land of the Free" my ass.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X