ZottenKerel Wrote:If there were no rules made for exceptions then how is the death penalty still being used? Where? Common pineappleing sense, that's where.
Lol, youthink I'm sympathizing with the killers or something? I didn't even mention them, this has nothing to do with what low-live scumbag douchbags like them do. This is about how we as society respond to it. And responding by doing the same thing they did is just NOT GOOD. You do the SAME THING THEY DO, HOW CAN YOU BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY THEN?
NB. Yes I did throw in some America hatin', even though I'm no America hater at all. But these are reasons why there is no money for a better healthcare/prison/legal system, because to much money is going to national defence (military) and oil (as far as the 2 are seperated).
I won't claim to be an expert on all of this and I'm sure there are nuances (if that's a word in English, I'm affraid not) and incompletenesses (wow im typing to fast I need to know the right words) about my remarks, but basic as it may be, these are the fundamental issues.
"Common sense: a collection of prejudices accumulated by age 18." -- Albert Einstein.
Your whole argument, (and previous argument,) hinges on what you see as "common sense." Unfortunately irl arguments require a bit more than the assertion of your own beliefs, (namely logic to back up your claims,) and you have given nearly none of that.
The claim that killing a criminal in the process of the death penalty is the SAME thing as the criminal murdering an innocent is completely illogical. The death penalty is death to the criminal in retaliation to his murder, not murder in retaliation to NOTHING. It can be argued that the death penalty is unfit for civilized society, but that's still not the same as claiming that the government is as bad as the murderer in putting him to death. Also liberals are not saying there is no money for health care, etc., becuase of expenditures on the military. I know this because they JUST PUT OUT a massive healthcare bill; so according to the liberals the money is there -- they wouldn't do all this backroom buttfuucking to put out a huge bill they don't have money for. As for expenditures on oil, that is private industry, not government spending, so it is completely irrelevant to what you're talking about. Your claims are very poorly put together, and completely illogical. Again, it is "common sense" to you, but to anybody with any shred of actual sense, they are anything but.
So, I am sorry, I cannot discuss/argue anything with you. It's not really feasible for two people to talk where one person says "this is what I believe, and this is why," and the other person says "this is what I believe, explaining why I believe it is not necessary."