Are You in Favour of the Death Penalty/Capital Punishment?

[Sigrun Christianson]

Not one crime?

Not even the torture and murder of White Children?

No.

All because you don't want the "darkening of your own 'soul' "!

Not "all", but that's a large part of it.

Let me suggest that the colour of your own soul is a matter between you and your priest.

I haven't a priest, but feel free to suggest. That is the point of this board: to express ideas, opinions, and suggestions.

As to justice, the State has every right to punish those who have violated it.

I agree.

By the way, is your soul "darkened" by the millions of aborted fetuses?

No, I didn't abort them.

[Moody]

Sigrun Christianson; "You use terms like "Child killer!" and "Child rapist!" as a means of provoking emotion, with intent similar to the Jews who use "Nazi! and "Racist!". Interesting".

Moody Lawless; No, I am emphasising, as I shall CONTINUE to do, that I consider Execution particularly suitable for those categories - child-killers and rapists.
For me the question of Execution is allied to those issues, however emotive - it is not a lawyer's abstraction.
Your attempt at ad hominem is laughable - YOU are the one trying to justify the continued existence of such killers and criminals, not I.

Sigrun: "And yes, even when it's the life of such a creature, I am against the death penalty because I absolutely do not believe in the right of the state nor any individual to decide life and death for another in the absence of immediate self-defense or immediate defense of another".

Moody Lawless; You make yourself a little clearer, but not much. You seem to take an Anarchist position, stating that the State does not have the right of life and death.
Therefore you would be against the right of a State to prosecute war against another? [to be consistent].
Or are you leaving open the possibility of death by combat?
But surely that is a death penalty of sorts?

Sigrun; "I defy to you find out where I stated that I was pro-abortion. I stated the opposite, actually ..."

Moody; You equivocated there as you do here; you made the similar Anarchist point that the State has "no right" to out-law abortion - that is tantamount to being pro-abortion!
You also said there that;
'The rights of the mother supersede the rights of the unborn child - rightly so'.
That is fairly pro-abortion speak!
And you said there, somewhat confusingly;
'I don't think that all life, simply because it is alive, is valuable'.
That sentiment extends to child-killers/rapists does it?
Then you say;
'I don't believe that all life is equally valuable'.
Pure equivocation!

Sigrun; "I said that I don't discuss abortion with men".

Moody; And that's not "lame"?

Sigrun; "I have way more important and interesting things to do than to get involved in politics, but since y'all have dropped ball so badly, I have no choice but to get involved.
Then stop being so irrational".

Moody; Me, irrational? That's cute coming from a full-time equivocator!

Sigrun: "I think you mistake disagreement for rudeness. I don't see where I was being rude in the older posts, but if you think so, then I apologize. I was trying to express myself, not insult you".

Moody; Don't play innocent now, "Christianson"!

Sigrun; "Where and how was I adopting the sentimentalist postion? Can you explain, please?"

Moody; What was that you said about the thought of a child-killer/rapist being Executed would "darken your soul"?
Sounds sentimentalist to me, as does the notion of "absolute liberty".

[Sigrun Christianson]

Moody Lawless; No, I am emphasising, as I shall CONTINUE to do, that I consider Execution particularly suitable for those categories - child-killers and rapists. For me the question of Execution is allied to those issues, however emotive - it is not a lawyer's abstraction. Your attempt at ad hominem is laughable - YOU are the one trying to justify the continued existence of such killers and criminals, not I.

Where was I ad hominem?

Therefore you would be against the right of a State to prosecute war against another? [to be consistent].

Yes. As I stated, only in self-defense.

Or are you leaving open the possibility of death by combat? But surely that is a death penalty of sorts?

I leave open the possiblity of self-defense.

You equivocated there as you do here; you made the similar Anarchist point that the State has "no right" to out-law abortion - that is tantamount to being pro-abortion!

No, it's not. It's tantamount to being of the opinion that the State has no right to out-law abortion.

You also said there that;
'The rights of the mother supersede the rights of the unborn child - rightly so'. That is fairly pro-abortion speak!

No, it's not. Pro-abortion speak is, "Get an abortion!" or, "I think abortions are great!"

And you said there, somewhat confusingly;
'I don't think that all life, simply because it is alive, is valuable'.
That sentiment extends to child-killers/rapists does it?

Yes, it does. Why are you confused?

Then you say; 'I don't believe that all life is equally valuable'.
Pure equivocation!

I don't believe that all life is valuable simply because it is alive and I am against the death penalty. Where is the conflict and where is the equivocation?

Sigrun; "I said that I don't discuss abortion with men". Moody; And that's not "lame"?

Nopes.

Sigrun; "I have way more important and interesting things to do than to get involved in politics, but since y'all have dropped ball so badly, I have no choice but to get involved. Then stop being so irrational". Moody; Me, irrational? That's cute coming from a full-time equivocator!

Thanks, I am pretty cute by most men's standards. Where, again, am I equivocating?

Don't play innocent now, "Christianson"!

I'm not.
I was trying to cool you off by apologizing, even though I really had nothing to apologize for as I wasn't being rude. You are, though. So, um, stop.

Moody; What was that you said about the thought of a child-killer/rapist being Executed would "darken your soul"? Sounds sentimentalist to me, as does the notion of "absolute liberty".

Okay, then please delineate the Sentimentalist philosophy for me because I am not familiar with it and therefore cannot agree or disagree.

[Tryggvi]

Moody,

I know that you have strong points you consider important, but I'd appreciate it if you could try to be a bit more courteous notwithstanding the enormous differences in opinion. Since neither you nor Sigrun will probably change his or her view, the debate, although interesting to read, could probably as well come to a closure.

- Thorburn [ skadi.net ]

[Moody]

You said HERE that your reason for opposing the death penalty was a "PURELY" "selfish" one.
You claimed that this 'purely selfish reason' was the "darkening of your own soul".

This is completely irrational.

Strange that the rightful Execution of child-killers would "darken your soul", but not the Abortion of living children!

[Moody]

Moody,

I know that you have strong points you consider important, but I'd appreciate it if you could try to be a bit more courteous notwithstanding the enormous differences in opinion. Since neither you nor Sigrun will probably change his or her view, the debate, although interesting to read, could probably as well come to a closure.

- Thorburn [ skadi.net ]

Njord, please look at Sigrun's post number 30 in this thread, posted 1 day ago at 18:31; if that wasn't intended to be rudely provocative, I don't know what is.
How would you take it if I responded to a post of yours out of nowhere with an abrupt "Eriksson"?
You'd find it rude, just as you address me as Moody and I address you as Njord - I even address Sigrun in that way.
Yes, I did not respond immediately in kind, but after a string of personal insults I felt I had to put Sigrun in her place.
However, I have not stooped to infering her to be a Jew - see what she says 4 posts above.
That is nothing more than baiting.
Surely this board should come down on those who bait others and try to provoke them?

However, I think the issue is a very important one, and I think that those who are against the death penalty for vile crimes against White Children should be called to account.
I like to think I have kept to the issue at hand; Sigrun has repeatedly claimed I was "upset" etc., to divert attention away from her poor argument.

[Sigrun Christianson]

Okay, it is not "purely" for that one reason, but that reason is a large part of it. I still don't see the conflict...

I don't execute people and I don't abort pregnancies so I have no responsibility for those. If I were to execute people and abort pregnancies, then I would. Why is this so unclear to you?

[Moody]

Sigrun Christianson; "Where was I ad hominem?"

Moody Lawless; When you tried to imply that I was a Jew.

Sigrun; "I leave open the possiblity of self-defense".

Moody; The rationale for the State's punishment of criminals is based on self-defense. When a criminal inflicts hurt on a member of the Nation, the Nation then punishes the criminal in an act of self-defense.

Sigrun; "The State has no right to out-law abortion ... Pro-abortion speak is, "Get an abortion!" or, "I think abortions are great!"

Moody; That's tantamount to saying that the State has no right to impose Immigration Controls [because they do SO offend 'absolute liberty'], and then say that you are against race-mixing!
That is equivocation.
Only the State can control abortion, therefore saying that State cannot do that IS tantamount to being pro-abortion ... in the real world.

When you say that 'not all life has equal value', and yet you clearly are against the Execution of child-killers, one can only conclude that you consider the life of a child-killer of higher value than that of an aborted fetus!
To deny that is equivocation.

Likewise, you say that the State is not allowed to Execute child-killers because that would make the State a murderer; but then to dodge the question of the State imprisoning kidnappers or fining thieves; that is equivocation.

You say elsewhere that the honest reason for your objection to the Death Penalty is "purely selfish", and has to do with the death of such criminals "darkening your soul"; this is sentimentalist stuff.
It is also hypocritical, as you do not find the abortion of innocent children as 'soul darkening'.

Also your high-handed attitude towards the men on this forum - saying that you "do not discuss abortion with men" is clearly obnoxious; likewise your addressing of other posters abruptly by their surname is also offensive.

What makes it worse is you then pretend that YOU are the offended party - only a woman could get away with that one!

[Sigrun Christianson]

How would you take it if I responded to a post of yours out of nowhere with an abrupt "Eriksson"?

Oh, that's what upset you. I was really bewildered. I would prefer that people I do not know and do not have a personal relationship with call me by my surname when addressing me in public. If it will appease you, I will go back and change it to "Mr. Lawless" and you are free to address me as "Christianson" or "Mrs. Christianson" until we have established a more personal relationship and I invite you to address me by my given name.

"... but after a string of personal insults I felt I had to put Sigrun in her place.

I did not insult you intentionally and I even offered an apology if my statements offended you - but you still want to attack me personally "by putting me in my place." That isn't going to happen and you are not even close to making me change my mind about capital punsihment or abortion so you may as well surrender and save your energy for someone you have a chance in hell of convicning. By the way, the only man who ever puts me in my place is Mr. Christianson.

However, I have not stooped to infering her to be a Jew - see what she says 4 posts above.

I inferred nothing - I clearly stated a correlation and I did not accuse you of being Jewish.

Surely this board should come down on those who bait others and try to provoke them?

I was doing neither.

However, I think the issue is a very important one, and I think that those who are against the death penalty for vile crimes against White Children should be called to account.

Account for what, exactly.. ? I did not kill any children, white or otherwise so I have nothing to account for in this regard.

I like to think I have kept to the issue at hand; Sigrun has repeatedly claimed I was "upset" etc., to divert attention away from her poor argument.

I claimed that you were upset because you appeared and still appear very upset - not to divert attention away from my arguments. You attribute much more deviousness to me than I can take credit for.

Anyway, Mr. Lawless, you may have the final word in this thread and then I shall close it.

[Sigrun Christianson]

Moody Lawless; When you tried to imply that I was a Jew.

I did no such thing.

Moody; The rationale for the State's punishment of criminals is based on self-defense. When a criminal inflicts hurt on a member of the Nation, the Nation then punishes the criminal in an act of self-defense.

It is based on punishment, not self-defense.

That is equivocation.

No, it is not.

... in the real world.

No, only in your perception of the "real world".

When you say that 'not all life has equal value', and yet you clearly are against the Execution of child-killers, one can only conclude that you consider the life of a child-killer of higher value than that of an aborted fetus!

You conlcude incorrectly. I think part of our problem is that you jump to conclusions too quickly.

To deny that is equivocation.

I do deny it and I am not equivocating.

Likewise, you say that the State is not allowed to Execute child-killers because that would make the State a murderer; but then to dodge the question of the State imprisoning kidnappers or fining thieves; that is equivocation.

I'm not dodging the questions - I intend to answer them as soon as I get a chance.

You say elsewhere that the honest reason for your objection to the Death Penalty is "purely selfish", and has to do with the death of such criminals "darkening your soul"; this is sentimentalist stuff.

Okay, so it's sentimental.. ? And.. ?

It is also hypocritical, as you do not find the abortion of innocent children as 'soul darkening'.

Where did I say that? Again, you are inferring ideas that I did not express.

Also your high-handed attitude towards the men on this forum - saying that you "do not discuss abortion with men" is clearly obnoxious;

If you say so, but it is how I feel.

likewise your addressing of other posters abruptly by their surname is also offensive.

I disagree.

What makes it worse is you then pretend that YOU are the offended party - only a woman could get away with that one!

I pretend nothing. I say exactly what I mean, woman or not.