Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (783561)	5/5/2014 4:55:18 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577183

I don't need to take anything off the table. In fact I'd vote for any candidate that supports the death penalty with high standards as opposed to just having poor lawyers. Of course you'll never convince me that barbaric people should be left to live in jail for life - they should be aborted late term - you do support abortion - amirite?

To: koan who wrote (783561)	5/5/2014 5:56:13 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577183

I appreciate you sticking with the topic this long. We have challenged each other to validate our opposing positions, and at least from my perspective I have been able to clarify a great deal for myself in the process. Your position remains that killing anyone (via capital punishment) is a barbarous practice that cannot be tolerated by modern societies, and we cannot with certainty guarantee the judgments in every case were not flawed, which further challenges the notion. · This is a sticking point, which I have not been able to totally dismiss. My position remains that the desire to produce just outcomes in every case should never be abandoned, as that would be the worst possible circumstance for society and that the current disposition of life sentencing does not satisfy the requirements of justice. And that Heinous Crime is a special category which deserves its own consideration. · You have failed to produce a viable solution to heinous crime, which would meet the requirements entailed in a just outcome. You have floundered and back peddled when pressured to show how ‘Life In Prison’ is a satisfactory solution, even to the point of attacking the premises of a just society. It doesn’t seem either of us has presented an argument that completely incapacitates the position of the other. We have limited our discussion to reason alone in attempts to avoid emotional involvement common to spiritual or religious considerations. If we did it would be a whole different discussion. For my part I feel we have picked this bone enough. Take care, one_less