Jimmy Buffett discussion
https://www.buffettnews.com/forum/
how do you know it wouldnt work?Coconuts wrote:That's getting awfully close to natural law, which really doesn't work.12vmanRick wrote:Yep, no blame here just kind rubs a few of us the wrong way that this gets publicity and others don't. Agreed on missing children too, whoever said that earlier.
I say turn the muderers over to the family and let them decide what the fate is OR kill the killer the way he/she killed their victim
and a college education,free medical,free food and everything else they get that i dont.Key Lime Lee wrote:Life in prison should be life in prison - no exceptions. If you pre-mediated and then acted out a murder frankly you're not fit to be a member of society.
But then I think TVs in prisons is ridiculous too.
yes,especially if we went back to public hangings.or if the victim or victims family could do what they wanted to themBuffett4ever wrote: Does anyone honestly believe that the death penalty servers as a deterant?
because it makes room for other convicts.the prisons are overfull right now.so the choices are to either let them go free or kill them.Buffett4ever wrote:So why have the death penalty then? Don't we need some form of deterant?Key Lime Lee wrote:The death penalty most definitely DOESN'T serve as a deterrant, at least according to the majority of studies ever done. Most folks committing crimes are either a) not thinking they're going to get caught or b) not thinking.
Tomm, because there has been VOLUMES written about natural law over the past 3000 years... the whole point of a society is to provide an alternative to natural law.tommcat327 wrote:how do you know it wouldnt work?Coconuts wrote:That's getting awfully close to natural law, which really doesn't work.12vmanRick wrote:Yep, no blame here just kind rubs a few of us the wrong way that this gets publicity and others don't. Agreed on missing children too, whoever said that earlier.
I say turn the muderers over to the family and let them decide what the fate is OR kill the killer the way he/she killed their victim
Schools are full too... should we kill the extra children?tommcat327 wrote: because it makes room for other convicts.the prisons are overfull right now.so the choices are to either let them go free or kill them.
VOLUMES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ON RELIGION TOO,DOES THAT MAKE IT FACT LEE?Key Lime Lee wrote:Tomm, because there has been VOLUMES written about natural law over the past 3000 years... the whole point of a society is to provide an alternative to natural law.
THAT IS A STUPID COMPARISON LEEKey Lime Lee wrote:Schools are full too... should we kill the extra children?tommcat327 wrote: because it makes room for other convicts.the prisons are overfull right now.so the choices are to either let them go free or kill them.
The prison system needs reform - no doubt about it. But the faults of the prison system do not justify killing people.
.THE KIDS ARENT IN SCHOOL AS PUNISHMENT FOR THINGS SUCH AS MURDERI AGREE,STONED PEOPLE DONT COMMIT CRIMES,THEY'RE TOO LAZY TO GET OFF THE COUCHa1aara wrote:You could lower the prison population by releasing all the people imprisoned for selling pot!
It still wouldn't act as any more of a deterrant than it does now - for it to act as a deterrant is to assume incorrectly that people weigh the consequences of their actions before committing a crime. For most folks who are capable of murder, this is not the case.tommcat327 wrote:yes,especially if we went back to public hangings.or if the victim or victims family could do what they wanted to themBuffett4ever wrote: Does anyone honestly believe that the death penalty servers as a deterant?
You would be the only person in the history of civilization to think so.tommcat327 wrote: NATURAL SELECTION AND NATURAL LAW ARE GOOD IDEAS IN MY OPINION.
THE FACT THAT IT IS ILLEGAL AND I WOULD GO TO JAIL IS WHAT KEEPS ME FROM SHOOTING PEOPLE EVERY DAY.THAT IS MY PROOF THAT IT IS A DETERRENTKey Lime Lee wrote:It still wouldn't act as any more of a deterrant than it does now - for it to act as a deterrant is to assume incorrectly that people weigh the consequences of their actions before committing a crime. For most folks who are capable of murder, this is not the case.
Public hangings or letting the victims family do what they want would only serve to satisfy the public's desire for revenge. But revenge has no place in a civilized society. As coconuts said, once you allow revenge to dictate the moral code of a society, you descend into a situation that closely resembles natural law, a situation where life is "nasty, brutish and short".
I DOUBT THAT.MAYBE THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS NO PROBLEM STATING IT IN PUBLIC BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SUPPORTS IT.I FIND ALOT OF MY OPINIONS ARE HELD BY OTHERS BUT THEY CHOOSE TO NOT EVER SAY IT IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLEKey Lime Lee wrote:You would be the only person in the history of civilization to think so.tommcat327 wrote: NATURAL SELECTION AND NATURAL LAW ARE GOOD IDEAS IN MY OPINION.
I think it's stupid to suggest that the only two options are let them go or kill them.... why not reform the prison system? Take the money from cable tv and weight rooms and build prisons with no amenities to hold prisoners with life sentences?tommcat327 wrote:THAT IS A STUPID COMPARISON LEEKey Lime Lee wrote:Schools are full too... should we kill the extra children?tommcat327 wrote: because it makes room for other convicts.the prisons are overfull right now.so the choices are to either let them go free or kill them.
The prison system needs reform - no doubt about it. But the faults of the prison system do not justify killing people.
Tomm, I think you don't fully understand the consequences of natural law and natural selection. I can't imagine that you honesly believe that you should be able to shoot those who can't shoot you first.tommcat327 wrote:I DOUBT THAT.MAYBE THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS NO PROBLEM STATING IT IN PUBLIC BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SUPPORTS IT.I FIND ALOT OF MY OPINIONS ARE HELD BY OTHERS BUT THEY CHOOSE TO NOT EVER SAY IT IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE
I'M FINE WITH THAT,BUT THOSE WHO RECIEVE THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE KILLED,NOT SIT AROUND FOR 20 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENS.Key Lime Lee wrote: I think it's stupid to suggest that the only two options are let them go or kill them.... why not reform the prison system? Take the money from cable tv and weight rooms and build prisons with no amenities to hold prisoners with life sentences?
I BELIEVE THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOOT THOSE WHO DESERVE IT.THATS ALLKey Lime Lee wrote:Tomm, I think you don't fully understand the consequences of natural law and natural selection. I can't imagine that you honesly believe that you should be able to shoot those who can't shoot you first.
It's called "checks and balances". When you're talking about killing someone, you need to make damn sure that they really committed the crime because once the "punishment" is enacted, there is no do over.tommcat327 wrote:I'M FINE WITH THAT,BUT THOSE WHO RECIEVE THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE KILLED,NOT SIT AROUND FOR 20 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENS.Key Lime Lee wrote: I think it's stupid to suggest that the only two options are let them go or kill them.... why not reform the prison system? Take the money from cable tv and weight rooms and build prisons with no amenities to hold prisoners with life sentences?
