Does Death deter?
A Plenary Verbositor
"Algernon" wrote:
> I hope I have not shocked you too badly, but the
> simple fact is this - there are many people like
> me in this no-so-wonderful world.
>
> Algernon Ignatious Mousley
>
The flowers, Algie. Remember the flowers.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
rema...@nym.alias.net wrote:
> Yes, I have just stated that I would personally
> kill another human being, if there were no
> possibility of being captured, tried, convicted,
> and executed.
The key is "tried, convicted".
Where capture and conviction is more likely then the rate of crime is
reduced. This is, of course, provided that the penalty is not trivial.
> I hope I have not shocked you too badly, but the
> simple fact is this - there are many people like
> me in this no-so-wonderful world.
Don't be too hard on yourself, son. There are quite a few people out
there who don't understand deterrence, after all.
Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
---- ((O))
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"And when I'm dead
If you could tell them this;
What was wood became alive." - Suzanne Vega, Kaspar Hauser's Song.
Highimpact1000
threatening and punishing people. The fact is, that you're a coward and a
hater. You want to kill people for no good reason..... you just want to
fuck them over. It's the pretty much the lowest thing possible. I am
trying to bring sanity, because I HOPE that there is a possibility for
sanity in this world. Your sort of mentality however makes it near
impossible. And the only solution to a world filled with those of your
outlook, is to die like Jesus.... You want to kill me? Fine take my body.
This world is so screwed. If you want to kill someone why don't you do it.
Why would you though? If you are really that messed then why don't you just
commit suicide. The fact is that your hate and desire to kill only hurts
you. Forgive for yourself, or remain in your hell.
At least you're honest though.
It's something to consider. If the world were anarchy..... who would you
kill? I wouldn't kill anyone unless they pissed me off. I doubt I'd kill
anyone at all. I'm a pretty nice guy. I mean seriously..... imagine
killing someone, blood all over... what's it going to do to you? Have you
read American Psycho? It's not going to make you very happy. You're
hurting yourself when you hurt someone else. Don't get me wrong, I'm
perfectly capable of killing if I find it reasonable, but there are very few
situations (if any) in which killing is reasonable. The fact is, you're
already a murderer at heart. And you will never know true life until you
give up death!
But consider.... I mean, it's hard to consider because even if it were
anarchy there would still be the possibility of reprisal. But consider if
you could kill and get away with it scott free. Would you do it? Who would
you kill? If you could just eliminate people, who would you eliminate? The
fact is that you HAVE to be reasonable. You have the capacity to be
unreasonable and kill for nothing, but why would you do that? The fact is
that killing people is generally unreasonable TO THE EXTREME. The fact is
that the consequences go far beyond mere "elimination" of individuals. Your
anger and outrage MUST be placed under reasonable authority, or it leads to
mindless destruction. If someone's a threat I can understand killing...
KILL OR BE KILLED. Otherwise, it's merely psychotic insanity.
<rema...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2001101319261...@nym.alias.net...
> I am sending this post via an anonymous remailer
> for reasons that will become self-appearant as you
> read.
>
> I have seen the question in my subject line
> debated any number of times in the two years I've
> been lurking in the halls of a.a.d-p, but I've not
> yet seen a truly honest answer. I do not mean to
> insult those who have debated either side of the
> issue, and perhaps I've simply missed the relevant
> posts.
>
> In any event, I am now posting MY OWN honest
> answer to the question:
>
> If there were no possibility of being sentenced
> to death. If LWOP were the harshest punishment I
> could be given. I would be more than willing to
> trade becoming a leech on society for the rest of
> my life in exchange for eliminating several people
> who are simply wasting the communal oxygen supply.
>
> Yes, I have just stated that I would personally
> kill another human being, if there were no
> possibility of being captured, tried, convicted,
> and executed.
>
> So, in my own case, the answer to the question
> "Does death deter?" must be: Yes, it certainly
> does.
>
> I hope I have not shocked you too badly, but the
> simple fact is this - there are many people like
> me in this no-so-wonderful world.
>
> Algernon Ignatious Mousley
>
Highimpact1000
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-212B5A....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <2001101319261...@nym.alias.net>,
> rema...@nym.alias.net wrote:
>
> > Yes, I have just stated that I would personally
> > kill another human being, if there were no
> > possibility of being captured, tried, convicted,
> > and executed.
>
> The key is "tried, convicted".
>
> Where capture and conviction is more likely then the rate of crime is
> reduced. This is, of course, provided that the penalty is not trivial.
>
> > I hope I have not shocked you too badly, but the
> > simple fact is this - there are many people like
> > me in this no-so-wonderful world.
>
> Don't be too hard on yourself, son. There are quite a few people out
> there who don't understand deterrence, after all.
Yes, but he's saying that the death penalty deters him, while life in prison
does not. It's quite obvious that you didn't understand his argument.
According to HIM the death penalty is keeping several people alive.
A Planet Visitor
in the hope that they might find an academic who is interested in
a case study involving suicidal depression, coupled with
delusional manifestations, coupled with compulsive indecision,
coupled with obsessive thumbsucking. Hi1K might well represent
a unique example which could result in a special cite in professional
psychological circles and could well form the basis for a doctorial
thesis, or even a best-seller.
PV
PS -- Just kiddin' hi1k... you know we all love ya. Just keep those
cards and letters coming.
"Highimpact1000" <highimp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:373df39a.01101...@posting.google.com...
Highimpact1000
You have the right to do anything you want except violate someone
else's right to do anything they want. No one has the right to do
anything against anyone else's will.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
highimp...@yahoo.com (Highimpact1000) wrote:
> wow a chance to expose your inanity
*giggle*
Projection, my friend, doesn't bode well for any diagnosis of your
mental state.
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:diablo-212B5A....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <2001101319261...@nym.alias.net>,
> > rema...@nym.alias.net wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I have just stated that I would personally
> > > kill another human being, if there were no
> > > possibility of being captured, tried, convicted,
> > > and executed.
> >
> > The key is "tried, convicted".
> >
> > Where capture and conviction is more likely then the rate of crime is
> > reduced. This is, of course, provided that the penalty is not trivial.
> >
> > > I hope I have not shocked you too badly, but the
> > > simple fact is this - there are many people like
> > > me in this no-so-wonderful world.
> >
> > Don't be too hard on yourself, son. There are quite a few people out
> > there who don't understand deterrence, after all.
> Yes, but he's saying that the death penalty deters him, while life in
> prison
> does not.
And what does that have to do with the price of Thanksgiving turkeys in
Connecticut? What it does or does not do to _him_ has nothing
whatsoever to do with whether the DP deters in a _general_ sense.
> It's quite obvious that you didn't understand his argument.
> According to HIM the death penalty is keeping several people alive.
What a load of unctuous arsewash! He may well choose to argue that the
moon is made of green cheese. If he did my disagreement would hardly
indicate a failure to understand his argument - it would indicate that
it was a jar of mouldy old cock.
You, my friend, are a complete nutter.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Besides, you don't have the right to kill anyone. Rights are desires.
Let's look at the dictionary again:
right n. 1. a power, privilege, etc. that a person has by law, nature,
etc. 2. what is just, lawful, proper, etc. 3. true report (with _the_)
4. the right side 5. _Boxing_ a) the right hand b) a blow with the
right hand 6. [often R-] _Politics_ a conservative or reactionary
position, party, etc. (often with _the_)
desire n. 1. a strong craving 2. sexual appetite 3. a request 4.
anything desired
Despite your impressively broad hand-waving, the definitions provided
(from the Collins Australian Pocket English Dictionary) indicate that
rights and desires are in no way equivalent.
> You have the right to do anything you want except violate someone
> else's right to do anything they want. No one has the right to do
> anything against anyone else's will.
What a load of complete balls! The innocents killed in the WTC attacks
had every right to continue to live, even though this was against the
will of Osama bin Laden.
You don't half talk some gibberish, matey.
Richard Jackson
> Besides, you don't have the right to kill anyone. Rights are desires.
> You have the right to do anything you want except violate someone
> else's right to do anything they want. No one has the right to do
> anything against anyone else's will.
>
>
>
Did you actually look at what you wrote? "Rights are desires" "No
one has the right to do anything against anyone else's will."
Think about the contradiction here. I desire to be a millionaire, but
I have to earn that money unless lady luck smiles on me at a lottery.
If desire is a right, then I would already be a millionaire.
"No one has the right to do anything against anyone else's will"
Rights are not determined by what someone wants, but are inherent in
being a human being. There are som rights which we are born with.
Others may attampt to repress those rights, but the rights still
persevere.
--
Richard Jackson
Mike
possibility of execution, or the more likely possibility of imprisonment?
You said if you knew you would not be arrested, tried...and finally
executed- how about if you knew that the process would not reach all the way
to execution? Because that is the most likely scenario, in most places. This
is why I think in some cases the jury/judge should have more options, like
some type of horrific execution, perhaps for killers in cases with extra
heinous circumstances- like sadistic killers- maybe the prospect of being
crucified would sink in that it is not worth it, no matter how strong the
urges they have to kill might seem. Mike.
<rema...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2001101319261...@nym.alias.net...
> I am sending this post via an anonymous remailer
> for reasons that will become self-appearant as you
> read.
>
> I have seen the question in my subject line
> debated any number of times in the two years I've
> been lurking in the halls of a.a.d-p, but I've not
> yet seen a truly honest answer. I do not mean to
> insult those who have debated either side of the
> issue, and perhaps I've simply missed the relevant
> posts.
>
> In any event, I am now posting MY OWN honest
> answer to the question:
>
> If there were no possibility of being sentenced
> to death. If LWOP were the harshest punishment I
> could be given. I would be more than willing to
> trade becoming a leech on society for the rest of
> my life in exchange for eliminating several people
> who are simply wasting the communal oxygen supply.
>
> kill another human being, if there were no
> possibility of being captured, tried, convicted,
> and executed.
>
> "Does death deter?" must be: Yes, it certainly
> does.
>
> simple fact is this - there are many people like
> me in this no-so-wonderful world.
>
>
Mike
power(usually in wartime situations) there are usually people who go into
bloodlust mode, and need to be restrained by their comrades. Some strains
of humans are just more violent than others- there is no denying it. Some
breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others, and some types of people
are, too. The very fact that serial killers have been around for so long
just proves what I am saying. That is why I consider capital punishment to
be not as uncivilized as people here claim it is- it is actually a
statement that society has nom use for killers, or their progeny- they
eliminate them from the world. It's not the best thing, to arrest someone
like Jeffrey Dahmer or Joel Rifkin, and send them to prison in a state where
they will be allowed to procreate- that's just my opinion, call it barbaric
if you want- but I wouldn't want a blood relative of either of those
people(Rifkin's mother knew he was killing whores,- in my opinion,- he was
using her vehicle to do it in the middle of the night, and she was driving
the same car to her job in the morning- I just don't believe she lived that
close to what was happening and didn't know anything) in my family, sorry if
I am prejudiced. Mike.
"Highimpact1000" <highimp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:373df39a.01101...@posting.google.com...
Sharpjfa
The number two deterrent is both getting caught and the punishment. Getting
caught is only a deterrent if a punishment is attached to getting caught.
Yes, the punishment of death does deter.
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
Highimpact1000
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:<diablo-AD46AC....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
Highimpact1000
> In article <373df39a.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> highimp...@yahoo.com (Highimpact1000) wrote:
>
> > Besides, you don't have the right to kill anyone. Rights are desires.
>
> Let's look at the dictionary again:
>
> right n. 1. a power, privilege, etc. that a person has by law, nature,
> etc. 2. what is just, lawful, proper, etc. 3. true report (with _the_)
> 4. the right side 5. _Boxing_ a) the right hand b) a blow with the
> right hand 6. [often R-] _Politics_ a conservative or reactionary
> position, party, etc. (often with _the_)
>
> desire n. 1. a strong craving 2. sexual appetite 3. a request 4.
> anything desired
>
> Despite your impressively broad hand-waving, the definitions provided
> (from the Collins Australian Pocket English Dictionary) indicate that
> rights and desires are in no way equivalent.
>
> > You have the right to do anything you want except violate someone
> > else's right to do anything they want. No one has the right to do
> > anything against anyone else's will.
>
> What a load of complete balls! The innocents killed in the WTC attacks
> had every right to continue to live, even though this was against the
> will of Osama bin Laden.
exactly. Which is why we're at war. We didn't agree. Now go to back to
your cave.
Highimpact1000
> highimp...@yahoo.com (Highimpact1000) wrote in message news:<373df39a.01101...@posting.google.com>...
> > Besides, you don't have the right to kill anyone. Rights are desires.
> > You have the right to do anything you want except violate someone
> > else's right to do anything they want. No one has the right to do
> > anything against anyone else's will.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Did you actually look at what you wrote? "Rights are desires" "No
> one has the right to do anything against anyone else's will."
>
> Think about the contradiction here. I desire to be a millionaire, but
> I have to earn that money unless lady luck smiles on me at a lottery.
> If desire is a right, then I would already be a millionaire.
No, it's up to you to make yourself a millionaire. You're expecting that
someone "out there" will do it for you. My POINT is that no one has the
right to limit your desires. That's all. And it's also quite possible that
you are extensively limiting yourself.
Ask and ye shall receive.
With god all things are possible.
> "No one has the right to do anything against anyone else's will"
> Rights are not determined by what someone wants, but are inherent in
> being a human being. There are som rights which we are born with.
> Others may attampt to repress those rights, but the rights still
> persevere.
Sure. You have the RIGHT to do anything you desire except to suppress
someone else's right to do anything THEY desire. Others may attempt to
repress your inherent god given right to do anything you desire, but you
still preserve the right to do anything you desire except to suppress THEIR
right to do anything they desire. No one has the right to suppress your
right to do anything you desire, and you do not have the right to suppress
anyone else's right to do anything they desire. Most people probably don't
care about what you do. When people don't agree though, we have WAR. So
play nice, or clash.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> go ahead and giggle little girl. Lucky the MEN are here to protect you.
As usual, you gibbering loon, you've utterly _failed_ to address even a
_single_ point that I've raised. I think you'd be better off going back
to following up your own posts. At least that's an argument that you
have some hope of winning, even if you look equally as foolish as I've
just made you appear.
Thanks for playing a.a.d-p. The exit door is on your right.