Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Verviedi wrote:
Honestly with the way things are going, the esting meat argument is turning into a political argument.

.
I see it happening the other way around. OP was talking about politics, and it became about meat.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If it doesnt have a concept of death and what that entails beyond survival instinct. Which is why we dont kill chimps or elephants.

How do we establish which animals have a concept of death?

Verviedi wrote:
Yes. Animals are nonsapient,

Ah. So it's ok to kill living things so long as their mental faculties (insofar as we have the ability to judge them) fall below an arbitrary baseline that we ourselves created?


Seems legit.

...and should serve humanity as we are more highly evolved than them.

Why does being 'less evolved' (whatever that means) automatically relegate something to the roll of servant? Or lunch?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I did always find that funny, That conservatives tended to be more "Pro-Deathpenalty" but somehow "Pro-choice" apparently a bunch of cells is more important then a fully formed human being

If you can find a baby guilty of any of the crimes people are put on dearh row for, then your point has some merit.

But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?

Relapse wrote:
If you can find a baby guilty of any of the crimes people are put on dearh row for, then your point has some merit.

Ok, I like that argument: killing innocent people is really bad. Therefore, since we can not eliminate the risk of executing innocent people for crimes they didn't commit (or executing people who are guilty of the same crime that gets life in prison for another person, due to racism), we should abolish the death penalty.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?

The bible doesn't forbid killing. It forbids unlawful killing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible?

What? The bible is full of killing people. Just after getting the 10 commandment, Moses has to execute a bunch of people because they did worship a golden calf just after getting the ten commandments…


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
It forbids unlawful killing.

Which is making it pretty shallow, really.
“Thou shalt not do unlawful stuff. What is unlawful? When, what you should not do is unlawful. Thou shalt know that asking about circular definition is unlawful.”

Its actually ''thou shall not murder''

Killing itself is a neutral subject. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

"I looked upon the field and beheld an army of straw men. And the army arrayed against them stood frozen, for they too were made of straw. In silent accusation these armies stood, and sense and truth were as thick upon the scene as the flesh upon the battlefield."

Dakka Bingo's great and all, but there's no fun when people are just serving it to you on a platter.

I saw the title of this thread and I knew it would be hilarious.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes, because a Steak is from a cow, and not killing a living thing

This is one of the most hilarious things I've read all year

Bravo little liberal, bravo

Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I did always find that funny, That conservatives tended to be more "Pro-Deathpenalty" but somehow "Pro-choice" apparently a bunch of cells is more important then a fully formed human being

Hey... I'll trade ya.

No more Death Penalty.

&

No more abortions.

Cool?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?

I know I didn't plan on saying anything else in this thread, but what the heck. Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
"I looked upon the field and beheld an army of straw men. And the army arrayed against them stood frozen, for they too were made of straw. In silent accusation these armies stood, and sense and truth were as thick upon the scene as the flesh upon the battlefield."

It took me acouple seconds to be able to breath again after that!

Relapse wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But the point is you are still killing a human being, something that is forbidden by Jesus, the ten commandments and the bible? But it is ok to kill aslong as they did something wrong?

I know I didn't plan on saying anything else in this thread, but what the heck. Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".

Ok, but death penalty isnt self defence, it is revenge killing

Also, Jesus told that guy off and healed the one who was struck by the sword.

The death penalty isn't necessarily revenge killing, because the victim of the criminal isn't the one who makes the decision. The state makes the decision, for whatever reason they might do so (criminal too dangerous to be left alive, don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life, the law says they have to, etc.)

 jasper76 wrote:
criminal too dangerous to be left alive

Not a plausible reason. Very, very few people that have been sentenced to death are the kind of super-criminals that could reasonably expect to escape from a maximum-security prison. If you can safely keep someone in prison long enough for their appeals process to finish then you can keep them in prison indefinitely.

don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life,

Not at all a plausible reason. Execution costs more than life in prison.

the law says they have to, etc.

Not likely. AFAIK the prosecution always has the option to seek the death penalty or not. I've never heard of a situation where the death penalty is mandatory for anyone convicted of a given crime.

I'm not trying to argue these reasons are good or bad, I am just saying that the death penalty isn't necessarily meted out for revenge. Revenge would be if the victim or someone close to the victim killed the criminal for the crime they committed. The victim doesn't ever get the chance to legally do so. They are in effect removed from that equation through the judicial system.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Also, Jesus told that guy off and healed the one who was struck by the sword.

That was because it was time to accomplish the rest of what he came for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
criminal too dangerous to be left alive

Not a plausible reason. Very, very few people that have been sentenced to death are the kind of super-criminals that could reasonably expect to escape from a maximum-security prison. If you can safely keep someone in prison long enough for their appeals process to finish then you can keep them in prison indefinitely.

don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life,

Not at all a plausible reason. Execution costs more than life in prison.

the law says they have to, etc.

Not likely. AFAIK the prosecution always has the option to seek the death penalty or not. I've never heard of a situation where the death penalty is mandatory for anyone convicted of a given crime.

There are several cases on the books, I'd dare say that approach or exceed wrongful execution where released convicted killers go on to commit more murders.

Here's a few cases:

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

I've had some good conversations with d-usa on this and would be willing to say that I would consider life without possibility of release, depending on the nature of the killing. Possibly even redefine what constitutes a murder charge.

A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

Modern Muslim terrorists are socially very conservative.

If you believe we have a “right” to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn’t that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

No

How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don’t matter?

"By their deeds shall ye know them."

What exactly is the “fair share” of someone’s income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

That is to be determined by society.

Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we’ve cut taxes?

Firstly that isn't actually true, secondly it is possible for a smaller slice of a larger pie to be larger than a larger slice of a smaller pie.

Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it’s pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they’d like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

Pro-choice. No.

If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn’t we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

Do you think corporations are good for putting people out of work?

How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn’t doing well because we aren’t spending enough money when we’re already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

If you need to drive 100 miles and pay for 90 miles worth of petrol, will you arrive at your destination?

If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

Show me the studies.

Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn’t change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we’re seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

Things already have changed dramatically. Did you not notice the Global Financial Crisis?

Since we “all agree” with the idea that our level of deficit spending is “unsustainable,” what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

We don't all agree that that idea.

If we change God’s definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what’s the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

What is God's definition of marriage?

In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it’s feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

Yes.

If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

Under US law both parties have to pay their costs.

How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

Please see debate about abortion.

A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What’s the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

Prove it. Henry Ford didn't have a problem with raising his minimum wage.

The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we’ve seen over the last century. Since we can’t adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

We can adequately explain and model those changes, that is kind of the point...

We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn’t government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

Is it actually happening? If it is, why should government be the same as popular music?

If people in the middle class aren’t willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don’t think it’s worth the money, shouldn’t we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

Define the middle class and show what level of tax they are willing to pay.

If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don’t we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

Please see Pai Cosmetics, the dominant female only luxury cosmetic form.

These questions are generally very poor and simplistic and presented in a combative spirit.

Of course...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Of course it anecdotal, but that question is poised to make all liberals look like hypocrites, when all it accomplices is insulting individuals and not looking at the broader picture.

You should feel bad for using it as a foundation for discussion. The sooner people try to answer the strongest questions of their political opposites the sooner we will learn why people so similar can disagree so violently on important topics. I believe this will, if nothing else, remind us to look for the reflections of ourselves in our 'political' 'enemies'.

Yep. These questions are akin to "Since everyone agrees you are a douchebag, why should we ever let you leave your house?"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

Modern Muslim terrorists are socially very conservative.

If you believe we have a “right” to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn’t that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

No

How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don’t matter?

"By their deeds shall ye know them."

What exactly is the “fair share” of someone’s income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

That is to be determined by society.

Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we’ve cut taxes?

Firstly that isn't actually true, secondly it is possible for a smaller slice of a larger pie to be larger than a larger slice of a smaller pie.

Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it’s pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they’d like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

Pro-choice. No.

If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn’t we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

Do you think corporations are good for putting people out of work?

How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn’t doing well because we aren’t spending enough money when we’re already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

If you need to drive 100 miles and pay for 90 miles worth of petrol, will you arrive at your destination?

If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

Show me the studies.

Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn’t change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we’re seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

Things already have changed dramatically. Did you not notice the Global Financial Crisis?

Since we “all agree” with the idea that our level of deficit spending is “unsustainable,” what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

We don't all agree that that idea.

If we change God’s definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what’s the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

What is God's definition of marriage?

In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it’s feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

Yes.

If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

Under US law both parties have to pay their costs.

How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

Please see debate about abortion.

A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What’s the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

Prove it. Henry Ford didn't have a problem with raising his minimum wage.

The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we’ve seen over the last century. Since we can’t adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

We can adequately explain and model those changes, that is kind of the point...

We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn’t government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

Is it actually happening? If it is, why should government be the same as popular music?

If people in the middle class aren’t willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don’t think it’s worth the money, shouldn’t we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

Define the middle class and show what level of tax they are willing to pay.

If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don’t we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

Please see Pai Cosmetics, the dominant female only luxury cosmetic form.

wut?

As to the question if conservative give more than liberals? The answer... is 'who knows'.
There's so much debate / study on this that leads me to believe that it's ideologically agnostic.

 jasper76 wrote:
Yep. These questions are akin to "Since everyone agrees you are a douchebag, why should we ever let you leave your house?"

This analogy is lost on me, mind explaining

 whembly wrote:

As to the question if conservative give more than liberals? The answer... is 'who knows'.
There's so much debate / study on this that leads me to believe that it's ideologically agnostic.

I'd just add that liberal/conservative is about as false a dichotomy as you can find. Most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yep. These questions are akin to "Since everyone agrees you are a douchebag, why should we ever let you leave your house?"

This analogy is lost on me, mind explaining

Many of the questions start off with false or questionable presumptions.

It's a form of a fallacy called begging the question. The definition is that the conclusion (you're a douchebag) is included in the premise as a statement of fact used to justify the proposal/claim. It never actually presents any evidence or argument that you are in fact a douchebag, it just pretends that you are and goes from there.

Side note, I found this gem in the comments in a random news article:

We will not fix this issue with Reform or Cops wearing body cameras. Body Cameras will only give cops the ability to conduct unlawful search and seizure and create a narrative based on video footage. There was video footage of John Crawford and Rodney King, and you see how these two incidents turned out. Besides you can’t reform laws that allow white men not just cops (George Zimmerman) to kill unarmed Black Men whenever they FEEL threatened. We are now living in the Book of Revelations. I do agree with Darren Wilson's comments on one thing though. He probably did see a Demon when he shot Mike Brown. When you do something wrong to God's Chosen People you will see demons which basically a refection of Wilson's own image. Read Revelations 2.9 and more importantly read it literally. It is not a parable. Black Americans are not decedents of Africa, but rather Israel. Yes they've kept this a secret for over 400 years and their secret is about to be revealed. This is why everyone can feels there's something not quite right in the world. Kind of like the Matrix, for lack of a better example.

 DarkLink wrote:
I
Side note, I found this gem in the comments in a random news article:

We will not fix this issue with Reform or Cops wearing body cameras. Body Cameras will only give cops the ability to conduct unlawful search and seizure and create a narrative based on video footage. There was video footage of John Crawford and Rodney King, and you see how these two incidents turned out. Besides you can’t reform laws that allow white men not just cops (George Zimmerman) to kill unarmed Black Men whenever they FEEL threatened. We are now living in the Book of Revelations. I do agree with Darren Wilson's comments on one thing though. He probably did see a Demon when he shot Mike Brown. When you do something wrong to God's Chosen People you will see demons which basically a refection of Wilson's own image. Read Revelations 2.9 and more importantly read it literally. It is not a parable. Black Americans are not decedents of Africa, but rather Israel. Yes they've kept this a secret for over 400 years and their secret is about to be revealed. This is why everyone can feels there's something not quite right in the world. Kind of like the Matrix, for lack of a better example.

Whoa Rastafari!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had to look it up:

Revelations 2.9:

I know of your tribulation and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander you endure from self-styled Jews who are nothing other than members of Satan's assembly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

Show me the studies.

Here's one from HuffPo.