[QUOTE]The patent for the telephone was American, not his citizenship. He was a Scottish-born Canadian resident.[/QUOTE]
Funny, you left that out, Mr. Loophole. So a Scotsman invented the Telephone and the Canadians want to take credit? Is that what you're agruing. Why don't you go play guitar hero with Inu-liger.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
But, again, people like Bob think he should have been given the chance to rehabilitate, at our expense, over years and years and countless funding.[/QUOTE]
Have I stated that every single person who commits a major crime can/should be rehabilitated?
Binary thinking... not good for you. Makes you look like an idiot, and you're the only person here who doesn't see it.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]The patent for the telephone was American, not his citizenship. He was a Scottish-born Canadian resident.[/QUOTE]Funny, you left that out, Mr. Loophole. So a Scotsman invented the Telephone and the Canadians want to take credit?[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the concept of relocating to another country and calling it home? Do you even know that Scotland and Canada are both part of the British empire? That's the only reason why it wasn't necessary to be a dual citizen at the time. Not that I'm encouraging you to educate yourself, but...
So there's that binary thinking complex again. One's place of origin is not the most important thing that matters, when things like choices and accomplishments matter as well. But I don't expect you to understand this concept, nor any other concept that requires some kind of independent thought.
Ironically, Americans often like to credit the US for the invention of the telephone because Bell became a US citizen seven years after the invention.
catqueen · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
@ catqueenWhat's my problem with AI? This:"despite compelling evidence of his rehabilitation. He had been on death row for more than half of his life."This is where I have a problem. Where are both sides of the argument. I would be much happier if they would have said..."despite some people saying he's getting better, this sick son of a bitch who killed innocent victims has been on death row for more than half of his life because of the ability for US inmates to tie up their sentences in appeals and motions."They give this guy a voice (albiet it after he died). Why not give his victims the same voice? Because THAT doesn't stir emotions. Because people like Bob think the victim's family should have been given the opportunity to shake hands with the killer and say "I forgive you... praise Jesus."What if the death penalty had been used on that Jordan VanDerSloot character? Perhaps there wouldn't have been a 2nd victim. But, again, people like Bob think he should have been given the chance to rehabilitate, at our expense, over years and years and countless funding. Well, they let him go and look what happened. He killed again. It's our fault, not his... right Bob?[/QUOTE]
Murder victims are given a voice. There is a court process, suspects are prosecuted, if there is enough evidence, condemned and punished. The perpetrator is known to society, and is pretty much an outcast. There is usually a funeral or memorial service for the victim, and often media attention focused on how awful and wrong it was that they had to die that way (maybe not in big countries, but in my country, every murder is reported). There are supports in place for families of victims. The victims are called 'victims' for a reason -- they are seen as having been violated in the worst possible way, and nobody has the right to take the life of another human.
And again with the name calling -- balanced views in reporting don't generally call people SOBs. That's emotive language, aiming to get people on your side without having a rational basis for it. A two sided argument could be 'we recognise the extent of his crimes, and they are inexcusable; however, he has shown strong evidence of rehabilitation over a long period of time. Therefore, the need for his execution after such a long period may be questioned.' Anti-capital punishment people are not supporting, condoning or in any way excusing murder, or saying it doesn't matter, OR saying that the murderer is worth more then the victim. All we are saying is that EVERY human has intrinsic rights, and one of those is the right to live. We have the right to not be intentionally killed by another human being. Those rights are not conditional on our behaviour. And even if you are pro-capital punishment, surely you can see why it is better not to wait 20 years before finally killing someone. If you're going to do it, just do it and get it over with.
Also, what about the people who are innocent but are found guilty in trial. Is the risk of the death of those innocent people worth it? And it does happen that people are condemned and later it is found that they were innocent.
And yes, repeat murder is tragic. Obviously. But if the answer is to kill off anyone who might repeat offend, why don't we start killing off anyone who might murder their first victim? So people who show aggression or violence, heck, maybe we should kill off all the people who commit domestic violence as well, cos some of them murder their spouses.
Nobody is defending murder here -- all we are saying is that it must be recognised that the murderer is also a human, with intrinsic rights.
And for the record, my step-brother was stabbed in the heart 15 years ago and nearly died. It has had a profound effect on his life. He is alive and well, but please don't go telling me about how a victims family should feel.
The Real Wizard · Member since
We really should stop talking to this person.
A discussion like this requires critical thought and basic cognitive development, neither of which he possesses.
Micrówave · Member since
No it requires more than one dimensional thinking, which you certainly don't have.
No wonder there's about 12 people who frequent this place... it's flavored with a bunch of Canadian pacifists
catqueen · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
No it requires more than one dimensional thinking, which you certainly don't have.No wonder there's about 12 people who frequent this place... it's flavored with a bunch of Canadian pacifists who don't know who invented the telephone.[/QUOTE]
I'm not bloody canadian! I have nothing against canadians, but i'm not canadian. In what way is my thinking one-dimentional? Its actually a topic i find it difficult to think on both sides of, but i think i am usually fairly balanced. And i don't see much evidence of you thinking from the other perspective. You seem strongly pro-capital punishment, and unwilling to consider as valid anything outside of what right wing politics dictates.
Micrówave · Member since
I was refering to Bob, catqueen.
[QUOTE]And for the record, my step-brother was stabbed in the heart 15 years ago and nearly died.[/QUOTE]
Hey, maybe Bob can make fun of your step-brother. Give me a break about the Step-Brother. That's BS and you know it. If you were so into defending your brother's attacker's rights, where were you??? What have you done to reach out to the poor jailed victim who's rights are being violated in prison?
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
No it requires more than one dimensional thinking, which you certainly don't have.No wonder there's about 12 people who frequent this place... it's flavored with a bunch of Canadian pacifists[/QUOTE]
Yay, more talking points and insults without sources cited.
Why do you even post here? Wouldn't you rather be in the company of a community of people who are more up your alley? Like... people who'd appreciate the fact that you're a bigoted, narrow-minded, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-US at all costs, insulated, xenophobic, anti-giving a damn about anyone else other than people who agree with you - type person?
Never mind your entire posting history... this single thread exhibits all of these attributes.
Micrówave · Member since
[QUOTE]Bob wrote: Yay, more talking points and insults without sources cited.[/QUOTE]
after writing...
[QUOTE]Bob wrote: A discussion like this requires critical thought and basic cognitive development, neither of which he possesses.[/QUOTE[/QUOTE]
I love hippos.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
Hey, maybe Bob can make fun of your step-brother. Give me a break about the Step-Brother. That's BS and you know it. If you were so into defending your brother's attacker's rights, where were you??? What have you done to reach out to the poor jailed victim who's rights are being violated in prison?[/QUOTE]
You are one disgusting human being. A hundred million sperm, and I can't believe you were the fastest.
This is the last time I ever acknowledge your existence.
Micrówave · Member since
Stealing jokes, now Bob?
Micrówave · Member since
Good.... because you really have nothing to offer and when you get frustrated you bring up Alexander Graham Bell or some shit like that.
catqueen · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
I was refering to Bob, catqueen.[QUOTE]And for the record, my step-brother was stabbed in the heart 15 years ago and nearly died.[/QUOTE] Hey, maybe Bob can make fun of your step-brother. Give me a break about the Step-Brother. That's BS and you know it. If you were so into defending your brother's attacker's rights, where were you??? What have you done to reach out to the poor jailed victim who's rights are being violated in prison?[/QUOTE]
You're actually the one who is insulting him. Like i said, it was 15 years ago, do you REALLY think he is still in jail? My bro wasn't actually killed, it was attempted. And you can feck off from insulting him thanks. I'm pretty much willing to bet Bob would not be insulting him, Bob has a decent level of human care and emotion. And its not BS, do you want me to post bloody pictures of his wound? And i wasn't there, because i was 10 years old. Legally, i would have had no say. And logically, a 10 year old has very little original thought or mature insight into complex situations.
