johncocker Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 No nothing like that You're obviously struggling with contextual arguments so I'll explain in the simplest terms-that remark was on another thread and was in relation to a regime, not an individual. It's perfectly possible to denounce the death penalty and not be a pacifist, there's nothing hypocritical about it. Is'nt a regime an individual controling individuals?so what your saying is its ok to overthrow a regime with with flamethrowers kill and burn people you don' t know, but don't harm a sadistic child killer. I think your struggling with logic.... btw did anyone call you a pacifist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*bobcat* Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Is'nt a regime an individual controling individuals?so what your saying is its ok to overthrow a regime with with flamethrowers kill and burn people you don' t know, but don't harm a sadistic child killer. I think your struggling with logic.... btw did anyone call you a pacifist? I dont think they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 ..I don't remember describing anyone as being a 'low life', perhaps your strategy in attacking personalities, rather than what they say, speaks volumes for the weak nature of your argument, assuming it can be described as such. you and your little gang would be expert at that and you know it ..I think you'll find thats why lot of people don't bother posting on sf anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 31, 2010 Author Share Posted July 31, 2010 Is'nt a regime an individual controling individuals?so what your saying is its ok to overthrow a regime with with flamethrowers kill and burn people you don' t know, If you recall the regime I was referring to was one where the rights of individual citizens had been restricted by the state, in that they were unable to engage in the democratic process, in other words they were 'inferior' to other citizens. Under those circumstances I would defend someone's right to self determination and the action they took to achieve it..in other words I'm not a pacifist who would resist the notion of direct action. but don't harm a sadistic child killer. I think your struggling with logic.... btw did anyone call you a pacifist? The sadistic killer is serving a sentence, if the state didn't prescribe punishment for offenders then I would be sympathetic to the reasons why victims might take the law into their own hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 31, 2010 Author Share Posted July 31, 2010 you and your little gang would be expert at that and you know it ..I think you'll find thats why lot of people don't bother posting on sf anymore. That's their choice, and their loss if they perceive it as such, I'm not losing any sleep over it, if they're unable to engage with people whose views they disagree with without soiling their nappies that's their problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 "Letting him off" hasn't been promoted by anyone outside your sweaty imagination. I must remember that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatty lady Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I would say the sheer mention of that mans name stirs up feelings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 If you recall the regime I was referring to was one where the rights of individual citizens had been restricted by the state, in that they were unable to engage in the democratic process, in other words they were 'inferior' to other citizens. Under those circumstances I would defend someone's right to self determination and the action they took to achieve it..in other words I'm not a pacifist who would resist the notion of direct action. The sadistic killer is serving a sentence, if the state didn't prescribe punishment for offenders then I would be sympathetic to the reasons why victims might take the law into their own hands. forgive me ,but I struggle with your vigilante type of morality," taking the law into their own hands" or pitchfork type mentalty as some people would call it.I really don't agree with that lynche mob type of thinking at all . as for direct action do you mean revolution or what! mass killings alright, mob vengence's ok ..yet your worried about a serial killers rights in nick ...whats happend to your logic:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 He did, we know what not, to those little girls, and he gets away with 40 years. The animal should swing. Is that better, spindrift No. read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatty lady Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Regardless of what ppl say about the scum child killer He should not have any right to sue and get compensation from the state for any reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.