mikem8634 Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Huge misjudgement there, not a one. I wouldn't hang around long enough to get to know them. How would you know? Oh, and don't forget to answer this - How exactly does disagreeing with the death penalty not qualify as an opinion? I am particularly looking forward to your attempt at that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I still don't think you actually know what sitting on the fence means. Tuneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ! How exactly does disagreeing with the death penalty not qualify as an opinion? You don't disagree, you're like a bookie, always lay your bets off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 You don't disagree, you're like a bookie, always lay your bets off. Once again you fail to answer the question put to you. You are, of course, at liberty to hold any opinion you wish. The thread, and our exchange in particular, can stand as testament to which one of us avoids questions, relies on ad hominem attacks, is reluctant to discuss what he believes related to the death penalty and uses name calling to cover a weak position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I'll charitably assume you've nothing left by way of useful comment on account of the lateness of the hour. I'll leave you with this though. I know you're a lover of freedom, of the wide open spaces; I know you've wild camped on Kinder and elsewhere. All of that suggests to me that you're a pretty decent human being. Have you ever used cocaine? If you haven't I'll lay odds that you know someone that has. Someone you know, someone you like and respect. It's just a tool, a substance or a thing that has a use - like aspirin, or a knife, or coffee. To kill someone for carrying it around is utterly obscene. As obscene as if I broke into your house and killed you because you drink beer or eat cheese. You need to examine your conscience if you think it's the right thing to kill this woman. Truly. ^^^ this ^^^ We can argue about the harm that is created by drugs, and I would argue that it is the naive failure that is called "the war on drugs" that creates the harm, but the fact remains that the harm caused is debatable. The harm created by killing people for carrying it around is patently obvious. I also detest the cultural relativism that is displayed by people in defending barbaric actions in other countries when they would object to it if it is displayed within our own borders. I don't accept the argument that it's somebody else's rules and that's it, if I think it's wrong to execute people for possessing drugs then I will say so. The alternative is to remain silent, which is a pathway to hell. Would the people who argue that it serves somebody right for doing X in Y country with their medieval rules and that's that, think the same if it was a family member who was banged up in jail for kissing their partner goodbye at some airport? Rules are rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmy Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 None of your business and irrelevant! But its not like she killed anyone. Even then, I dont believe in capital punishment. How do you know that it wouldn't have killed anyone if she hadn't been caught, you obviously know nothing about the dangers of drugs! What a silly childish comment you made there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 How do you know that it wouldn't have killed anyone if she hadn't been caught, you obviously know nothing about the dangers of drugs! What a silly childish comment you made there Realistically, as I'm sure you must know, the odds that anyone is going to die directly from cocaine use are really rather low. That's not really the point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 ^^^ this ^^^ We can argue about the harm that is created by drugs, and I would argue that it is the naive failure that is called "the war on drugs" that creates the harm, but the fact remains that the harm caused is debatable. The harm created by killing people for carrying it around is patently obvious. I also detest the cultural relativism that is displayed by people in defending barbaric actions in other countries when they would object to it if it is displayed within our own borders. I don't accept the argument that it's somebody else's rules and that's it, if I think it's wrong to execute people for possessing drugs then I will say so. The alternative is to remain silent, which is a pathway to hell. Would the people who argue that it serves somebody right for doing X in Y country with their medieval rules and that's that, think the same if it was a family member who was banged up in jail for kissing their partner goodbye at some airport? Rules are rules. I suspect people in many countries looking at the stentence Philpot got for trying to murder a child he had been abusing since she was 14 may wonder what position Great Britain is in to argue we've got it just right when it comes to justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 How do you know that it wouldn't have killed anyone if she hadn't been caught, you obviously know nothing about the dangers of drugs! What a silly childish comment you made there Perhaps you would like to tell us what the likelihood of her killing somebody would be since you seem so knowledgeable? Perhaps you could attempt the sort of research that Professor Nutt was/is doing? I think he had cocaine as the 3rd most harmful drug after heroin and alcohol. Perhaps you could compare the number of deaths in the UK with the amount of cocaine consumed, and then attach a risk to Sadiford's package? The direct risks would be negligible. The risk of harm from a firing squad is 100%. Some of the reactions to drug use here remind me of conversations that Professor Nutt has described with various MPs: MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’ Professor Nutt: ‘Why not?’ MP: ‘Because one’s illegal.’ Professor Nutt: ‘Why is it illegal?’ MP: ‘Because it’s harmful.’ Professor Nutt: ‘Don’t we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?’ MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.’ repeats … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I suspect people in many countries looking at the stentence Philpot got for trying to murder a child he had been abusing since she was 14 may wonder what position Great Britain is in to argue we've got it just right when it comes to justice.He didn't try to murder his children, the judge was very explicit about that in the sentencing. You're either misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 In addition, I don't recall any mention of child abuse being mentioned.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.