How many times before the death penalty is a viable and sensible option?

I mean it's not something to be dished out lightly in cases where it's "he said/she said" or "we think this is the guy", but how many times does a person need to offend before you just say "he's fuct mate, shoot him".

Anyone want to defend this guy's actions and justify why he deserves to live?

lol

in future please place trigger warnings for transphobia, misgendering on comments like this or you will be reported

This particular case aside, I'm strongly against the death penalty because of two points:
I do not believe that the government is infallible, and I do not think it's ok to occasionally kill innocent people.

If you think the death penalty is OK, let me know which of the two above statements you disagree with.

Hey, have we been reading the same Reddit comments?

That's why I put the qualifier in there of "not something to be dished out lightly". If you're innocent, you don't get caught up in repeated offending. An innocent man doesn't have a history of setting up services in Thailand and finding himself filming his crimes. It's these cases I'm talking about, where it's obvious that the person accused is definitely the guilty party, and not only that, they have a history of it.

I don't believe it should be "anyone who goes to trial for offense X has death penalty by default, with no consideration for circumstances".

But to have a firm "no death penalty" stance is to ignore the fact that it's 100% effective and more cost effective. You just think it's wrong because feelings, but hey, I'll shoot him and you can wave a placard, and then we're both happy. You did your best.

Whatever happened to "choices have consequences" which was a concrete bit of logic in previous arguments?

Remember guys, word can't harm you! It's just a coincidence that crazy people keep shooting up gay clubs
https://youtu.be/EjiTjIQhhWI

Using the video game argument of the 90's eh. Nice.

Let's ban it all, that'll stop the bad things from happening

That video games make people violent?

Do you think that high profile conservatives spewing bigoted expression is similar to kids playing a video game?

Your white privilege is sticking out again.

Nice nice, keep it up. Let's ban them all, comrade.

fixed_truth: *attempts to convince us that people making bigoted statements about marginalized communities is harmful*

Also fixed_truth:

If you're going to try to make a point, don't be a hypocrite or you really have no point at all.

But his points are the correct points so it's totally not hypocritical.

Just as it is totally fine to be singing anti-Semitic songs that promote violence such as 'From the River to the sea'. Sung by New Zealand's favourite refugee, Golriz Ghahraman and other assorted Green party members.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/Fr...ver-to-the-Sea

Wow this is so contradictory.
Your so into anarchy that you're against 'the man' mandating mask wearing or vaccination.
But you're OK with 'the man' defining a structure of controls that when breached a number of times, 'the man' removes you from existence?
How do you reconcile those?

We've got some cross post action going on again but I'll post here.

The general scientific consensus is that the position that covid vaccines are dangerous (ie what voices for freedom believe) is irrational & unfounded and so from that it's justified to not like their ideas (and to think that it's an example of voters not being rational)

Denying someones gender identity and labeling them mentally ill, dangerous, sex offenders, faking, confused etc is not justified.

I'm not "so into anarchy" - I'm into people having rights defined by law as a priority, laws not breaching those rights, and people not breaching laws. That's how I reconcile them. If I've ever posted things promoting absolute anarchy I was probably shitface drunk, in which case any opinions expressed are likely garbage.

The point is not about the specific arguments, the point is about whether people have the right to express their opinions and in fact the right to have bigoted opinions.

I'm not denying you your right to be a bigot - I'm just saying that since you yourself are a bigot toward a group of people, it's not consistent of you to say that people shouldn't be allowed to be bigots, since you are one yourself.

But right to life doesn't count?

When a person breaks laws, they also lose rights - prison is an example of rights being lost, specifically the right to freedom of movement, and freedom to leave the country. Typically crimes breach other peoples rights and laws are expected to be respected. If someone demonstrates that they don't respect laws, and breaches the rights of others, then their rights should diminish accordingly. If they persistently demonstrate that they have no respect for rights or law, then I don't see a fundamental reason why right to life needs to be upheld. The fact that capital punishment has existed, and still exists in other countries, shows that it has been effective in the past. To say that it's no longer effective is to ignore the reality of capital punishment.

I appreciate that governments and the justice system get things wrong. Again, it's not something to dish out for stealing a loaf of bread. But a clear demonstration that you don't respect laws or other people's rights, are willing to cause harm to many people, in particular children, and have been through the usual processes without success, continue to offend, despite fair warning, seems to imply that something more serious and effective could be put into place that would solve the problem.

I'm not suggesting "cruel and unusual punishment" - I'm suggesting quick and easy solutions to a problem citizen that refuses to change their ways and respect others rights and refuses to "act in a spirit of brotherhood" despite repeated and clear warnings and attempts to rehabilitate.

People have an inherent right to life, but can also be conscripted to go and fight a rich man's war, where they are likely to lose their life, but that's conveniently ignored. These people are generally well behaved young men who haven't committed any crime, or breached anyone's rights, but their "right to life" is ignored for the sake of "national security" or some such justification.

Abortion is another case where "right to life" is ignored, similarly a person who is medically incapacitated has their right to life removed by proxy. A person other than the individual dying, makes a decision to end their life. Euthanasia is another example where someone has the "right" to life, but gives it up voluntarily.

Breaching the rights of others, and getting clear warnings and repeating your offending could be seen as giving up your right to life voluntarily, by way of your own actions.

What I'm hearing is that laws that breach peoples rights are OK so long as you agree with them

Then you're missing the part where people have committed crimes and forfeit their rights. You can't or at least shouldn't impose laws which remove the rights of law abiding citizens, but you can impose punishments for breaking laws, which in effect removes rights. An example is getting arrested, going to prison or getting fined. Do you believe in punishments for laws (aka consequences for actions)? Is a fine not depriving someone of their property? I think we can both agree that people have a right to property. What affects this right? Do you believe in prison?

“Being non-binary doesn’t excuse the shooter’s whiteness” is the best/worst sentence I’ve read on the internet today

You can't just ask people why they're white.

@Titus
You just wrote out a long form example of my previous reply . . . .

It's called explaining my position. I even asked questions to find out more about what you think, but your brain apparently shut down when you had to formulate a response. That's why you haven't changed my mind - you haven't explained why some rights are taken from people and society considers that OK, but this particular right to life is somehow sacred.

Anyway, we've drifted from "pedophile becomes transgender to get sympathetic justice" and you're not adding much, so I'll just wait for the next eye rolling instance of society going down the drain while you and your kind celebrate "progress".

Just to stir the pot, I'll add a Tucker Carlson clip:

Tucker Carlson: This is a dangerous cult

Society is normalizing sex with children.

"At some point, when the spell breaks our entire society will recognize this, and we will all recoil in shame that we ever tolerated it for a second... but we're not there yet"

it is perfectly normal for a luxury fashion brand to do a photo shoot featuring a confused toddler on a couch next to wine glasses holding a stuffed toy in fetish gear with court documents about child pornography in the background

https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/statu...32715126202368

@DrT - no no you've got it all backward - there is nothing for me to convince and nothing for me to add.
I questioned the inherent conflict in your position/opinions.
You have failed to recognise that they are even there - explaining that they exist deeper and deeper doesn't do anything to the initial questioning.

It's quite interesting. As if you are blind to it.
But in any event yes you are right - thread derail detected. Terminating.

In which an obviously male trans activist named Natalee proclaims that the Colorado Springs suspect can not be non-binary because it’s obvious he’s male you can tell just by looking at him

https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/statu...83840764022784

How many layers of irony are we on

CNN is now purposely misgendering the Club Q shooter. This is literally hate speech.

Is the eyerolling an integral part of transplaining?

Worshippers left 'in tears' as Cambridge dean claims Jesus was transgender

Cultception

Not enough it would appear

Not surprising when the conversation has been hijacked by people susceptible to made up culture war issues like womens shelters & toilets being a problem.

Which is a shame as there is a discussion worth happening about how prisons are managing transwomen prisoners.

That discussion like many will be ongoing. Just not on the Internet. It's not something that the public mind is going to be able to reasonably grapple with.

There goes women’s sport

Should get rid of weight divisions too, seeing as they've stopped using logic and reason when making these decisions.

Age divisions too.

It's the next step in the evolution of things. There are any number of competitions where it can be seen the sport could be divided differently than they are.

For instance UFC has weight classes, but there could easily be height classes or reach classes.

There's no entitlement or right to only compete amongst a certain set of people.

If we're really concerned about vulnerable people and how they might be disadvantaged, can we actually invest in this? The status quo is largely to neglect the vulnerable. Where are our coherent values?