Hi, Hello, Thank You For This Incredibly Condescending Sandwich Youve Just Served Me. I Do So Love The

Hi, hello, thank you for this incredibly condescending sandwich you’ve just served me. I do so love the stink of pretentiousness in the morning! 

First off, yes, I do agree with everything OP says. The fact that I do is not the slam-dunk you seem to think it is. Also, what mental lifting must be done to understand the statements they’ve made? Unless, like the vast majority of people on this site, your reading comprehension was stuck in the fifth grade. If you, an adult, can’t understand a relatively simple paragraph, I despair for you.

Your primary defence of the death penalty is that the state has the right to kill because an individual has the right to kill, and the individual has the right to kill in the case of self-defence. I fail to understand how you made the leap that the state is a person, and therefore has the same rights as a person. The state is not a being, it is not sentient. There are no rights a state can have. Rights are assigned to human beings, and the state is not a human being. In this case, killing is a /power/. States have powers, they do not have rights. Ergo, the question is, should the state have the power to kill people? Moreover, you say that the individual has a right to kill in self-defence. I will extrapolate that you mean this is the /only/ acceptable reason for the killing of another human. If this is true...the state has no business killing the offender. The offence is not being committed against the state, it is being committed against the victim. The event is over and done with. Killing in self-defence, or justifiable homicide, is something that cannot be done /after/ the fact. Once the victim is dead, there is no self-defence to be enacted. 

There are two methods of dealing with criminals. Punishment for the crime, or preventing a repeat offence. In our current society, prison is used for these dual purposes. If a murderer is incarcerated, they won’t be reoffending. You say that the state needs to kill these people so that they can’t reoffend. But if you can't even trust the state to keep them incarcerated, I fail to see why would you trust the state with the power over life and death. 1 in 8 death row inmates are exonerated. ONE in EIGHT! As well, as many as FOUR PERCENT of death row victims may be innocent! Why would you take that chance?! If there is the slightest possibility that even ONE person may be innocent, WHY IN FUCK would you KILL them? What you’re advocating for is murder! Prisoners can always be released. Reparations can be made. Unless you’ve found some way of practicing necromancy, the death penalty cannot be reversed.

The death penalty is a hallmark of punitive justice. It is literally called “capital PUNISHMENT.” It is defined as “death as punishment for a crime.” And once again, state-sanctioned murder is not self-defence. Self-defence, by definition, can only be enacted by the victim of a crime. Also by definition, the death penalty is a revenge killing. Your argument falls flat. If self-defence is the only acceptable reason for killing, then why would you endorse revenge killing? The two are contradictory. If the state was ever put to trial, the death penalty would never, EVER, be ruled a justifiable homicide. The death penalty is punishment, pure and simple. It is revenge. It is not justice, it is not righteous, and it is, most definitely, NOT self-defence. There are other ways of keeping criminals contained. From reoffending. If your only method of preventing recidivism is by murdering its own citizens, that is a societal failure. 

For your information, I do live in a country where the death penalty is illegal. I don’t know about you, but we consider this a sign of how civilized and humane we are. And you, living in America, support the death penalty? Really? With its history? You say you’ve made it your life’s work to question its application...so why are you supporting it so vehemently? The society you’ve proposed where we can trust the state without a shadow of doubt to properly exercise the power over life and death is either nonexistent or a very, very long time away. There is no government in the world right that can be trusted with the death penalty. There will not be for a very, very long time, possibly never. So why do you fight so hard for its acceptance right now? Is the right of the state to murder people so important to you? Hmmm....

Every time a verdict is handed down on some horrible killer a bunch of armchairs jurors flip out about how he deserved the death penalty. Wait til I tell u that death penalty should be abolished entirely because the state does not have the right to kill people, ever, no matter who they are. People do not have the right to kill other people and the death penalty grants state officials this right based purely on power. Anyway, ask yourself who benefits from the death penalty. When a person has caused grievous harm there is no way to undo that harm. Their death doesn’t undo it— that is what is so tragic about hurting other people. No amount of suffering they experience will change what they did. The families of the victims will grieve no matter what. If it’s for their benefit, ask yourself: if someone badly harms me or someone I love, does that give me the right to see them die? At what point do I get to decide who lives and who dies?

The violence between individuals is different than violence of the state against individuals. Self-defence is not the same fucking thing as the death penalty and you should know that. The point is that the state should never have that kind of power over people because often, as you demonstrate here, the right, and moreover the being in the right of this, is often unquestioned when it comes to state action. The majority of people will believe state action is justified simply because it is the state. This power WILL be abused. This abuse WILL go unquestioned. I think you can see why this is a bad idea.

Every time a verdict is handed down on some horrible killer a bunch of armchairs jurors flip out about how he deserved the death penalty. Wait til I tell u that death penalty should be abolished entirely because the state does not have the right to kill people, ever, no matter who they are. People do not have the right to kill other people and the death penalty grants state officials this right based purely on power. Anyway, ask yourself who benefits from the death penalty. When a person has caused grievous harm there is no way to undo that harm. Their death doesn’t undo it— that is what is so tragic about hurting other people. No amount of suffering they experience will change what they did. The families of the victims will grieve no matter what. If it’s for their benefit, ask yourself: if someone badly harms me or someone I love, does that give me the right to see them die? At what point do I get to decide who lives and who dies?

new game tell me where you're from, what the current temperature is, and whether you think that's warm or cold, just in general. I'll go first: Michigan, 42F, not that cold.

This week, Louise decided to be brave in front of the vacuum for the first time in her life. Unfortunately, I needed to vacuum there, so she was much less helpful than she anticipated she would be.

yuzu is google’s 6th most searched athlete of 2022!!!

if anyone is interested here is the page: https://trends.google.com/trends/yis/2022/GLOBAL/