[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776142]Chuck in "mean". I got woken up at 6AM this morning by a fire alarm - so I'm a little tired.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I forgot it was my duty to fix your basic sentence structure
The quote means the sacrifice of your rights for the sake of a sense of security is a terrible decision, and those willing to give up their rights just to feel safe shouldn't have either
It's 3:25am btw and I'm still able to form sentences
I'm going to sleep, hopefully you're able to stop dodging questions and having blind faith in your government by tomorrow morning
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776160]Sorry I forgot it was my duty to fix your basic sentence structure
The quote means the sacrifice of your rights for the sake of a sense of security is a terrible decision, and those willing to give up their rights just to feel safe shouldn't have either[/QUOTE]
You're applying it to a standard situation though. I'm just applying it to criminals. They don't have to be willing, and it's not a sacrifice.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776123]It's also in the best interest of the majority of citizens. The benefit to the many outweighs the benefit of the few, or the one. [/QUOTE]
so people have no rights at all. you either have all those rights and the government can't take them away or you have no rights. you can't cherrypick rights as you see fit
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776123]Religion is blind faith, millions of people seem to believe in it.[/QUOTE]
does that make it correct, or even logical?
[quote]Religion is blind faith, millions of people seem to believe in it.[/quote]
Man I didn't even notice this until Kalibos quoted it
That really sealed the deal for me, good luck in life MWH
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776166]so people have no rights at all. you either have all those rights and the government can't take them away or you have no rights. you can't cherrypick rights as you see fit[/quote]
I don't see why a couple of non-essential rights can't just be moved out of the "set in stone" rights. Another sections of ones that have responsibilities attached or something along those lines.
[quote]does that make it correct, or even logical?[/QUOTE]
No, but it doesn't make it an invalid point of view.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776176]I don't see why a couple of non-essential rights can't just be moved out of the "set in stone" rights. Another sections of ones that have responsibilities attached or something along those lines.
[b]No, but it doesn't make it an invalid point of view.[/b][/QUOTE]
Huh?
"Does [millions of people believing it] make it correct?"
"No, but it doesn't make it invalid"
So basically it has no relation to the factuality or credibility of the subject
In which case you posting about religion being followed by the masses was completely unrelated and neither contributed nor detracted from anyone's arguments
brb laptop, arguments on the go
I was saying that an unfounded belief does not necessarily make it completely invalid. Some could claim they've seen no proof of god (I go with this one) while others could claim they've seen nothing to disprove god.
I've seen no proof of the UK government being untrustworthy, so I see no reason not to trust it - is basically my point of view.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776176]I don't see why a couple of non-essential rights can't just be moved out of the "set in stone" rights. Another sections of ones that have responsibilities attached or something along those lines. [/QUOTE]
the reason you don't understand is because you don't understand the concept of rights
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776176]No, but it doesn't make it an invalid point of view.[/QUOTE]
I'll agree with that but blind faith is a highly irrational way of thinking
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776212]the reason you don't understand is because you don't understand the concept of rights[/quote]
In essence the "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property" is suspended when you're jailed. I don't see why you have an issue with a couple of other rights from being suspended as well.
[quote]I'll agree with that but blind faith is a highly irrational way of thinking[/QUOTE]
Yes. However, the UK government has done some trustworthy things, thus making it a fair guess that it isn't in too bad a shape.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776206][b]I was saying that an unfounded belief does not necessarily make it completely invalid.[/b] Some could claim they've seen no proof of god (I go with this one) while others could claim they've seen nothing to disprove god.
I've seen no proof of the UK government being untrustworthy, so I see no reason not to trust it - is basically my point of view.[/QUOTE]
That's not what Kalibos was saying.
He was replying to [b]you[/b] implying that lots of people believing in something made it more valid, and now you're pretending he said it was INVALID even though he's just being neutral.
I can't tell if you're really misreading things or just doing an excellent job of confusing me by contradicting yourself and switching positions all the time
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776230]In essence the "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property" is suspended when you're jailed. I don't see why you have an issue with a couple of other rights from being suspended as well. [/QUOTE]
no it's not. you still have that right while you're in jail. whatever property of yours that you have with you you're fully entitled to enjoy.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776230]Yes. However, the UK government has done some trustworthy things, thus making it a fair guess that it isn't in too bad a shape.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom]they've also done some untrustworthy things[/url]
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776259]no it's not. you still have that right while you're in jail. whatever property of yours that you have with you you're fully entitled to enjoy.[/QUOTE]
You might have the right, but that doesn't stop them keeping you in jail and therefore not able to exercise the right.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776271]You might have the right, but that doesn't stop them keeping you in jail and therefore not able to exercise the right.[/QUOTE]
I feel like you have a severe lack of understanding for what 'rights' actually are
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776271]You might have the right, but that doesn't stop them keeping you in jail and therefore not able to exercise the right.[/QUOTE]
what do you mean? I just demonstrated how you're able to exercise that right while in jail
if you have a tennis ball while in jail you're fully entitled to enjoy your tennis ball
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776284]what do you mean? I just demonstrated how you're able to exercise that right while in jail
if you have a tennis ball while in jail you're fully entitled to enjoy your tennis ball[/QUOTE]
You're not allowed to bring your house into jail.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776288]You're not allowed to bring your house into jail.[/QUOTE]
what's your point
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776304]what's your point[/QUOTE]
There's exceptions to the right.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776288]You're not allowed to bring your house into jail.[/QUOTE]
So because you don't have immediate access to your property it's a violation of your rights?
Does that mean my rights are being violated whenever I leave the house and feel like watching TV on my flatscreen at home?
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776310]There's exceptions to the right.[/QUOTE]
how is that an exception to the right?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776317]So because you don't have immediate access to your property it's a violation of your rights?
Does that mean my rights are being violated whenever I leave the house and feel like watching TV on my flatscreen at home?[/QUOTE]
I never said permanently remove people's rights, so you're pretty much contradicting your own point with that.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32776318]how is that an exception to the right?[/QUOTE]
By jailing you you can't enjoy your house at that point in time. That would be equal to temporarily suspending rights [b]which is what I suggested[/b].
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776331]By jailing you you can't enjoy your house at that point in time. That would be equal to temporarily suspending rights [b]which is what I suggested[/b].[/QUOTE]
your house is irrelevant. you're allowed property in jail, such as a tennis ball. you're allowed to enjoy your tennis ball in prison. your right remains intact.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32776331]I never said permanently remove people's rights, so you're pretty much contradicting your own point with that.[/QUOTE]
what
i dont even
how
absolutely none of this post makes sense
Wow, I'm quite glad I left when I did. It seems to have gone almost full retard in here.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776358]what
i dont even
how
absolutely none of this post makes sense[/QUOTE]
I honestly have trouble following his side of the argument entirely.
This thread is just dumb. Human rights are RIGHTS. not a privellige, This is some true Nazi bullshit up in here
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;32776597]This thread is just dumb. Human rights are RIGHTS. not a privellige, This is some true Nazi bullshit up in here[/QUOTE]
well, not really. anyone in [I]the[/I] position of power can [B]and will[/B] revoke your "rights" if and when they see fit.
japanese internment during WW2 or the patriot act are examples.
it's not necessarily malicious. it's just that rights are made up and not very practical, although they're a nice idea nonetheless. while we can jabber on about what rights we have and their implications in civilized society, whenever some serious shit goes down [I]or the government wants to[/I], *poof* - there go our rights.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;32776597]This thread is just dumb. Human rights are RIGHTS. not a privellige, This is some true Nazi bullshit up in here[/QUOTE]
Fantastic! Now that you've imparted your sage wisdom, we can close this thread and debate this nevermore.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32776586]
I honestly have trouble following his side of the argument entirely.[/QUOTE]
You're not the only one, and it isn't the first time, either.
I have been trying to keep up with this thread, but I am no good at debating on the fly (laptop between classes).
I think it was Locke who put forward or elaborated on the idea of natural state of rights or something to that effect. I think what Im trying to say is that once you take the social contract idea and apply it you definatly lose some rights but you still have your basic rights as per (at least here in the US) the Bill of Rights.
Iin Political Science,We talked about torture and its effectiveness and I was told that torture often doesnt produce good results. You will say anything to make a torture stop if you arent trained in "torture resistance". I know thats not a good term but I cant think about it right now.
Rights can be taken away (not right or moral though) but that doesnt mean that they can be redefined as privilages just to ease the taking of them.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32776358]what
i dont even
how
absolutely none of this post makes sense[/QUOTE]
Makes perfect sense to me, tell me what you're confused about and I'll explain it in simple terms for you.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32776938]Fantastic! Now that you've imparted your sage wisdom, we can close this thread and debate this nevermore.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
You're not the only one, and it isn't the first time, either.[/QUOTE]
Typical of you to be trolling again.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;32777228]
Typical of you to be trolling again.[/QUOTE]
...yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Weren't you just banned for trolling?
lol
5 Days ago
Swebonny banned AngryChairR for 3 Days in Is Pedophilia a Mental Illness/Disorder? with the reason “This isn't how you post in Mass Debate. Personal attacks doesn't belong here.”
2 Months ago
Starpluck banned AngryChairR for 1 Day in South Korea enacts chemical castration law against child sexual abuse with the reason “Trolling”
4 Months ago
verynicelady banned AngryChairR for 7 Days with the reason “Trolling via PM”
6 Months ago
Autumn banned AngryChairR for 3 Days in Suddenly, Everyone Is Realizing That The British Are Sending The US A Huge Warning with the reason “Trolling via PM”
Overv banned AngryChairR for 1 Day in Health Information - What is wrong with your body? with the reason “Trolling”
Starpluck banned AngryChairR for 12 Hours in Health Information - What is wrong with your body? with the reason “Shut up, stop derailing the thread and get some skeep”
9 Months ago
verynicelady banned AngryChairR for 1 Day in Homosexuality/Bisexuality vs. Transsexualism with the reason “Trolling”
12 Months ago
verynicelady banned AngryChairR for 1 Day in this thread with the reason “Trolling”
I'm amazed at how many people have just jumped into this thinking they've read the entire thing and are stabbing at comments out of context... morons.. specifically you HumanAbyss and Megafanx13. Read the whole thread before you pick and choose certain sentences. Don't quote me where I said that I was wrong in my estimation of statistics but that regardless it doesn't change my opinion because it's not the main basis of it and think I am ignoring the loss of support I had when I have clearly acknowledged it. Don't be so anxious to spit out your opinion and attack someone without reading everything they've said. If you don't want to read all the pages then don't comment on anyone in particular just state your opinion. And those of you that keep whining about the justice system not being perfect but then patting each other on the back saying "oh lawl omg Mr. America is just gonna say this is hypothetical ahahah , almost as if the OP stated a hypothetical not a real life discussion of American justice systems". Apparently that's far too complex for you hiveminds to comprehend...
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;32774872
furthermore i think society goes about crime the entirely wrong way.
in solving any problem, [I]preventative[/I] measures are for more effective than [I]reactionary[/I] measures. Work to stop a crime from happening, decreasing the chance of someone wanting to commit a crime, etc. is more effective than punishing an individual after they have done the crime..[/QUOTE]
I agree preventative measures are far more effective than any reactionary measure in stopping future crime, I was just responding to the OP's question of what we should do as a response to a murder not how to prevent it.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32775615]Mr. America, you seem to think all murderers are psychopaths. This just isn't true. There are plenty of people who kill when they are mentally competent and sane, because of the circumstances they are in. For example:
What about a domestic abuse victim who has been beaten for several years, and finally snaps?
What about a juvenile who kills a parent who has been abusing the other parent?
What about someone who kills their rapist?
What about a person who helps their grandparent commit suicide, because euthanasia is not legal?
What about a medical practitioner who actively withholds treatment for someone with a terminal illness with their consent?
What about a sleep-deprived parent who leaves their baby in the back seat of their car on a hot day, and forgets?
What about a juvenile who deals illegal drugs as a source of income for their family giving someone a dodgy pill that kills them?
What about a person who accidentally kills someone, perhaps out of negligence, but is not guilty of pre-meditated murder?
What about someone who plans the murder of a murderer who, for some reason, has not been convicted by the courts?
What about a soldier?
Mass murderers and serial killers statistically make up relatively little of all murders, but so much of your argument is dependent on your 'hypothetical situation' of a terrorist who has killed 50 'innocent' people. This situation is fairly unrealistic.
On a related note, how innocent do people have to be for their murder to mean something? Can they rape? Murder? Deal drugs? What?[/QUOTE]
Case and point... AGAIN. If you would stop being such an ignorant tard and READ what the OP asked. [B]In a situation where someone intentionally killed 50 innocent people should they have humane treatment.[/B] We're not talking about self defense, people who are engaged in militaristic combat, or people that are defending others. You could quite easily easily extrapolate that I support self defense from my opinion so don't be a dumb shit. Start a new thread if you want to talk about self defense.
This thread has become useless now that we have so many of you retards just commenting on off topic things and thinking you're so brilliant for asking what about someone who is killing to protect their lives, which is not what we're talking about, and that executing someone for murder is the same thing as intentionally taking the lives of innocents; which it is impossible to be equal to because we are talking about executing GUILTY murderers, not innocents.....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
