The most humane form of death penalty?

[kal-el]

I'm glad that you've at least read the letter. But you need to get to the application stage next.

Been there, done that. I used to (for a little anyway) buy everything that the bible stated, until I woke up, and started actually thinking. That's where I started questioning things. The bible dosen't represent reality.

Where do you come up with these wild theories?

Is it so "wild" to question everything that's printed in a book written by scribes?

 

[Jonathan52988]

I still stand corrected that firing squad is the cheapest, using modern technology, and it is the quickest form way to kill someone. It may seem cruel to shoot someone in the head, but if you think about it some of these criminals slowing tortured there victim to death. So legal injection doesn't sound too bad, they slowly die and suffer for the last few minutes of there life.

I can't believe that some people wish to get rid of the death penalty. If you kill someone, we should kill you back.

 

[God-Is-Holy]

Been there, done that. I used to (for a little anyway) buy everything that the bible stated,

Perseverance is necessary. Not half-hearted skepticism.

until I woke up, and started actually thinking.

You're actually thinking? You just seem like you disagree with everything, after some polarized fashion. That's not actually thinking. That''s just disagreeing.

That's where I started questioning things.

I've asked you to condense down to two or three primary questions, but instead you threw fifty more questions out there. It seems unreasonable for someone to answer all of those questions for you, if you can't condense down to your most important ones.

The bible dosen't represent reality.

Not your reality maybe. But it seems that you may just be creating your own reality that nobody else knows about.

Is it so "wild" to question everything that's printed in a book written by scribes?

Yes, if they are just 50 silly questions. Ask two or three primary questions with merit instead.

 

[kal-el]

Perseverance is necessary. Not half-hearted skepticism.

You're actually thinking? You just seem like you disagree with everything, after some polarized fashion. That's not actually thinking. That''s just disagreeing.

I've asked you to condense down to two or three primary questions, but instead you threw fifty more questions out there. It seems unreasonable for someone to answer all of those questions for you, if you can't condense down to your most important ones.

Not your reality maybe. But it seems that you may just be creating your own reality that nobody else knows about.

Yes, if they are just 50 silly questions. Ask two or three primary questions with merit instead.

I applied your reasoning concerning the application of the stories of the bible before, and failed to see the obvious condradictions in it. But now that I have been on both sides of the fence, I feel I'm in a better position to tell which side is reasonable, as I can see them both objectively. You haven't got that objectivity yet, hence you're still biased.:lol: And a little FYI, the bible must be proven accurate. It's not true until it is proven true. If a man is accused of murder, he has to be proven guilty, or else he is innocent.

 

[God-Is-Holy]

I applied your reasoning concerning the application of the stories of the bible before, and failed to see the obvious condradictions in it.

You had only read the Bible through once. That's not quite enough to exposit errors from it, as you're attempting to do.

But now that I have been on both sides of the fence, I feel I'm in a better position to tell which side is reasonable, as I can see them both objectively.

You're obviously extremely biased against the Bible now, as is evident in your posts. This means that you're not viewing the Bible objectively. What you're unwilling to admit is that you never really learned the Bible all that well in the first place, and you're now simply attacking yourself (although it manifests in the form of attacking others), because you felt you were so naive.

You haven't got that objectivity yet, hence you're still biased.

Actually, I was sitting on the other side of the fence before I came to know that the Bible is innerantly and infallibly true. So I've seen it from both sides. And believe me, your arguments offer me nothing.

:lol: And a little FYI, the bible must be proven accurate.

It already has been, but you've rejected the proof. It's about as hard for a sinner to confess their sin, as it is for an alcoholic to confess their alcoholism. Even though the evidence is blatant, your eyes are closed.

It's not true until it is proven true.

That's incorrect. Something can indeed be true, even if it's not proven true to your senses. Something does not become true only when it is proven to be so. Your reasoning is childish and centers around you in this respect. Nor is it anyone's obligation in this forum to prove the Bible to you. Especially if you don't want to listen, and further fail to condense your specific objections to a digestible format.

If a man is accused of murder, he has to be proven guilty, or else he is innocent.

Actually, you're contradicting yourself now, insofar as you've judged the Bible guilty until it is proven innocent. Yet you say that a murderer is innocent until proven guilty. You can't have it both ways, while maintaining intellectual integrity. You are in no way objective. Apparently, you neither understand the Bible nor the law.

 

[tecoyah]

Actually, I was sitting on the other side of the fence before I came to know that the Bible is innerantly and infallibly true. So I've seen it from both sides. And believe me, your arguments offer me nothing.

And I....the exact opposite, having been faithful for many years, and deciding on a somewhat different truth.

 

[kal-el]

You had only read the Bible through once. That's not quite enough to exposit errors from it, as you're attempting to do.

Uhh, sorry to inform you, yes it is, only when they're so commonplace. One must be extremely biased not to see all the fallacies in it.

You're obviously extremely biased against the Bible now, as is evident in your posts. This means that you're not viewing the Bible objectively. What you're unwilling to admit is that you never really learned the Bible all that well in the first place, and you're now simply attacking yourself (although it manifests in the form of attacking others), because you felt you were so naive.

Actually, the first time I read it, I was faithful to Christ/ god. I'll admit, some of the stories were hard to swallow, nevertheless I continued to believe. When I went over it again (SQRR, survey, question, read, recite, review), I wasn't reading it to blatanly pick stuff out. But the condradictions just jumped out at me. I tried to deny them, but it was condradiction, after contradiction. After this, I was lead to beleive that god was simply a character in a book.

Actually, I was sitting on the other side of the fence before I came to know that the Bible is innerantly and infallibly true. So I've seen it from both sides. And believe me, your arguments offer me nothing.

Wow, from what I have seen, many Christians are rational, intelligent people, except when it comes to the Bible. How, pray tell, did you come to know (as if it were a fact) that the bible is innerantly true? Are you holding out on me? Did the giant skydaddy make himself known to everyone and I wasn't around?:lol:

It already has been, but you've rejected the proof. It's about as hard for a sinner to confess their sin, as it is for an alcoholic to confess their alcoholism. Even though the evidence is blatant, your eyes are closed.

Proven true? When, what? By fellow Christians? Dude, Christian hearsay, and the bible, which is nothing more than written hearsay mean nothing. What evidence? Give me some actual websites that say the bible is factual, and not Christian websites, please. Until you do that, you have no leg to stand on.

That's incorrect. Something can indeed be true, even if it's not proven true to your senses. Something does not become true only when it is proven to be so. Your reasoning is childish and centers around you in this respect. Nor is it anyone's obligation in this forum to prove the Bible to you. Especially if you don't want to listen, and further fail to condense your specific objections to a digestible format.

Ahh, but it is their obligation to prove the bible to me, if and only if they make all sorts of naked assertions, and use the bible to back up their arguments. You sound like your having a hissy-fit because you cannot prove that god exists.:lol:

Actually, you're contradicting yourself now, insofar as you've judged the Bible guilty until it is proven innocent. Yet you say that a murderer is innocent until proven guilty. You can't have it both ways, while maintaining intellectual integrity. You are in no way objective. Apparently, you neither understand the Bible nor the law.

Ok, maybe that was a bad analogy, sue me, better yet, crucify me. Don't forget, the bible is the very source of your wild claims. It cannot be used to support itself. Remember, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.

 

[God-Is-Holy]

Uhh, sorry to inform you, yes it is, only when they're so commonplace. One must be extremely biased not to see all the fallacies in it.

Actually, the first time I read it, I was faithful to Christ/ god. I'll admit, some of the stories were hard to swallow, nevertheless I continued to believe. When I went over it again (SQRR, survey, question, read, recite, review), I wasn't reading it to blatanly pick stuff out. But the condradictions just jumped out at me. I tried to deny them, but it was condradiction, after contradiction. After this, I was lead to beleive that god was simply a character in a book.

Wow, from what I have seen, many Christians are rational, intelligent people, except when it comes to the Bible. How, pray tell, did you come to know (as if it were a fact) that the bible is innerantly true? Are you holding out on me? Did the giant skydaddy make himself known to everyone and I wasn't around?:lol:

Proven true? When, what? By fellow Christians? Dude, Christian hearsay, and the bible, which is nothing more than written hearsay mean nothing. What evidence? Give me some actual websites that say the bible is factual, and not Christian websites, please. Until you do that, you have no leg to stand on.

Ahh, but it is their obligation to prove the bible to me, if and only if they make all sorts of naked assertions, and use the bible to back up their arguments. You sound like your having a hissy-fit because you cannot prove that god exists.:lol:

Ok, maybe that was a bad analogy, sue me, better yet, crucify me. Don't forget, the bible is the very source of your wild claims. It cannot be used to support itself. Remember, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.​

:2wave:Happy Holidays :2wave:​

 

[JOHNYJ]

Hell with Humane. I say bring back the Gas chamber and electric chair.I think the form of execution should have some deterent aspects in itself.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by JOHNYJ:
Hell with Humane. I say bring back the Gas chamber and electric chair.I think the form of execution should have some deterent aspects in itself.

So your saying murder is a rational act?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Hell with Humane. I say bring back the Gas chamber and electric chair.I think the form of execution should have some deterent aspects in itself.

If we're gonna take that route, why not have public hangings or decapitations?

 

[Polish Rob]

Definately lethal injection. The best way to die is dying in your sleep, and that's what lethal injection basically does. It's a very peaceful way of dying. All the rest involve some sort of pain during the death.

That should be the way all states should use the death penalty-through lethal injection.

Unless you're John Wayne Gacy of course

 

[cherokee]

Firing squad

 

[robin]

People like BTK & Gacy should be slowly lowered into boiling water.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Robin:
People like BTK & Gacy should be slowly lowered into boiling water.

How about peanut oil, 'cuz they were nuts?

 

[robin]

How about peanut oil, 'cuz they were nuts?

........ :lol:

 

[thecelt]

there are NO 'humane forms' of death penalty. Fact of the matter is, there should be no death penalty.
im my opinion, if what they've done is so bad, then lock them up - death is a easy way out for them. let them suffer a bit in a shitty cell.

 

[The Real McCoy]

there are NO 'humane forms' of death penalty. Fact of the matter is, there should be no death penalty.

The question is what the MOST humane form of death penalty is.

Shooting someone in the head is not humane but it's more humane than slowly hacking them to death with a chainsaw.

im my opinion, if what they've done is so bad, then lock them up - death is a easy way out for them. let them suffer a bit in a shitty cell.

Agreed.

 

[ngdawg]

The question is what the MOST humane form of death penalty is.

Shooting someone in the head is not humane but it's more humane than slowly hacking them to death with a chainsaw.





Agreed.

Last night I watched a show on the history of the death penalty in this country. Actually, a precise shot to the head IS the most humane. Death is instantaneous and organ transplantation is possible, which it is not with any other form. Lethal injection has a history of errors, the most common of which is the IV popping out(forget the term they used for that-seems blood can back up and push the needle out as the drugs go in).
Personally, I am on the fence about it, with legs dangling towards a 'no'. It's expensive to taxpayers, isn't a deterent at all, and seems a sort of absolving in that the criminal doesn't have to 'live' with what he's done. Either total isolation for the rest of his days or throwing him to the worst of the worst and may the best man win seems more in keeping with the punishment aspect. But I understand victims' families that want to see the scum 'fry'.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is no humane way to kill.

 

[thecelt]

But I understand victims' families that want to see the scum 'fry'.

i wouldn't. If my ma or da was murdered by scum then i would like to see them suffer! Man i'd torture them myself - i wouldn't want anyone else to do it.

 

[Polish Rob]

How about peanut oil, 'cuz they were nuts?

THey both werent nuts. They were respectable citizens that felt that they could get away with something terrible, and for a while, they both did.

Ed Gein was nuts. You can dip him in peanut oil.

 

[The Real McCoy]

There is no humane way to kill.

But do you agree some ways are more humane than others? (A bullet to the head vs. a chain saw to the genitals.)

BTW, nice avatar.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Real McCoy
But do you agree some ways are more humane than others? (A bullet to the head vs. a chain saw to the genitals.)

Yes.

Originally posted by The Real McCoy[/I
BTW, nice avatar.

I lost a bet. Give me a break.

 

[ngdawg]

Yo, Bill! pittsBERG??

DUDE! it's PITTSBURGH!!!:doh