Breakdown In Civil Order

[Gospel]

Further breakdown in civil order:

Far right groups praise Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

They want to do the same thing here.

Several concerning trends have emerged in recent weeks on online platforms commonly used by anti-government, White supremacist and other domestic violent extremist groups, including "framing the activities of the Taliban as a success," and a model for those who believe in the need for a civil war in the US, the head of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, John Cohen, said on a call Friday with local and state law enforcement, obtained by CNN.

I say let them try, but this time let's actually take the 400 acres, the mules, not give them any statues, and actually serve them the death penalty for treason this time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Further breakdown in civil order:

Far right groups praise Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

They want to do the same thing here.

Several concerning trends have emerged in recent weeks on online platforms commonly used by anti-government, White supremacist and other domestic violent extremist groups, including "framing the activities of the Taliban as a success," and a model for those who believe in the need for a civil war in the US, the head of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, John Cohen, said on a call Friday with local and state law enforcement, obtained by CNN.

I say let them try, but this time let's actually take the 400 acres, the mules, not give them any statues, and actually serve them the death penalty for treason this time.

Even despite all they have done, all the evil that has been wrought, I don't think more death is the answer. Maybe just offer them some free Ivermectin?

 

[Gospel]

I say let them try, but this time let's actually take the 400 acres, the mules, not give them any statues, and actually serve them the death penalty for treason this time.

Even despite all they have done, all the evil that has been wrought, I don't think more death is the answer. Maybe just offer them some free Ivermectin?

Death may not be the answer for treason but it is the law.

 

[Jarhyn]

I say let them try, but this time let's actually take the 400 acres, the mules, not give them any statues, and actually serve them the death penalty for treason this time.

Even despite all they have done, all the evil that has been wrought, I don't think more death is the answer. Maybe just offer them some free Ivermectin?

Death may not be the answer for treason but it is the law.

Well, the maximum extent of punishment afforded by the law. They could just end up barred from ever holding office.

 

[TomC]

Death may not be the answer for treason but it is the law.

Well, the maximum extent of punishment afforded by the law. They could just end up barred from ever holding office.

I'd be OK with removing government issued licenses, like practicing law, medicine, driving...
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Death may not be the answer for treason but it is the law.

Well, the maximum extent of punishment afforded by the law. They could just end up barred from ever holding office.

I'd be OK with removing government issued licenses, like practicing law, medicine, driving...
Tom

Blah, we could have done that last time but didn't. I say this time it's all or nothing. Civil Wars which would lead to the death of millions of people shouldn't get a 5-year sentence and a 10k fine. That's just $5,000 short of being caught with 20 pounds of weed. America's democracy is worth less than 100 pounds of weed folks!

 

[TSwizzle]

Three people sitting at table outside a cafe are held up and robbed at gunpoint on Melrose Ave, Los Angeles.;



Meanwhile DA Gascon tirelessly pursues potential hate crimes.

 

[Gospel]

Death may not be the answer for treason but it is the law.

Well, the maximum extent of punishment afforded by the law. They could just end up barred from ever holding office.

Whatever man. You picking the lesser punishment and my picking the greater doesn't make either pick any less lawful.

 

[Jarhyn]

Death may not be the answer for treason but it is the law.

Well, the maximum extent of punishment afforded by the law. They could just end up barred from ever holding office.

Whatever man. You picking the lesser punishment and my picking the greater doesn't make either pick any less lawful.

Awful or Lawful? It's Lawful right now to snitch on a neighbor getting an abortion in Texas, but it's also Awful.

 

[Gospel]

Whatever man. You picking the lesser punishment and my picking the greater doesn't make either pick any less lawful.

Awful or Lawful? It's Lawful right now to snitch on a neighbor getting an abortion in Texas, but it's also Awful.

It's also lawful to fly a kite indoors using a high-Velocity fan. I suggest you go do that because I have no idea what your point is here.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whatever man. You picking the lesser punishment and my picking the greater doesn't make either pick any less lawful.

Awful or Lawful? It's Lawful right now to snitch on a neighbor getting an abortion in Texas, but it's also Awful.

It's also lawful to fly a kite indoors using a high-Velocity fan. I suggest you go do that because I have no idea what your point is here.

My point is that law doesn't really much enter into my worldview or calculus of whether to do something. Nor most people's I think, at least not most people I would consider "good".

My point is that you shouldn't do awful things if you have the self-control to decide otherwise.

Admittedly, there are things I lack the self control to always be on the right side of (I don't know if I would be able to not laugh at all funerals, for instance. I might in fact break out and dance a jig depending on whose funeral it was). So I don't expect everyone to be right all the time, and it would be unreasonable to ask as much.

Still, I see your pushing for a lawful thing to nonetheless be awful.

 

[Gospel]

It's also lawful to fly a kite indoors using a high-Velocity fan. I suggest you go do that because I have no idea what your point is here.

My point is that law doesn't really much enter into my worldview or calculus of whether to do something. Nor most people's I think, at least not most people I would consider "good".

My point is that you shouldn't do awful things if you have the self-control to decide otherwise.

Admittedly, there are things I lack the self control to always be on the right side of (I don't know if I would be able to not laugh at all funerals, for instance. I might in fact break out and dance a jig depending on whose funeral it was). So I don't expect everyone to be right all the time, and it would be unreasonable to ask as much.

Still, I see your pushing for a lawful thing to nonetheless be awful.

The last civil war caused the death of around 700,000 people. It's not awful to enforce a law intended to discourage losses of that magnitude.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's also lawful to fly a kite indoors using a high-Velocity fan. I suggest you go do that because I have no idea what your point is here.

My point is that law doesn't really much enter into my worldview or calculus of whether to do something. Nor most people's I think, at least not most people I would consider "good".

My point is that you shouldn't do awful things if you have the self-control to decide otherwise.

Admittedly, there are things I lack the self control to always be on the right side of (I don't know if I would be able to not laugh at all funerals, for instance. I might in fact break out and dance a jig depending on whose funeral it was). So I don't expect everyone to be right all the time, and it would be unreasonable to ask as much.

Still, I see your pushing for a lawful thing to nonetheless be awful.

The last civil war caused the death of around 700,000 people. It's not awful to enforce a law intended to discourage losses of that magnitude.

It's always awful that people die rather than change. You will not change me on this.

Edit: I fully accept that sometimes people will not or cannot be changed in the timeframe that change is necessary other than through the change that is death. But that, too, is awful, to be avoided through all means.

 

[Gospel]

The last civil war caused the death of around 700,000 people. It's not awful to enforce a law intended to discourage losses of that magnitude.

It's always awful that people die rather than change. You will not change me on this.

I'm not interested in changing you. Knowing personally what an unchanging mind is like you of all people you should know that the death penalty for treason (and otherwise) is necessary sometimes. If anyone wants to take up arms and kill people for unlawful reasons, they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves getting killed lawfully. In my opinion, Treason perpetrated for a Civil War (which is what I'm talking about and you seem to be trying to tie in all sorts of shit) is not the same as the January 6th treason (regardless of them flying confederate flags). Those people are rightfully being given monetary and jail time punishment. Declaring war on America, taking up arms, and killing people because you didn't like the election results, or you don't like the immigration policy, or you just want to own the democrats should be discouraged by exercising the highest punishment available by Law. That's just me. It's not like they don't have other options.

 

[Jarhyn]

The last civil war caused the death of around 700,000 people. It's not awful to enforce a law intended to discourage losses of that magnitude.

It's always awful that people die rather than change. You will not change me on this.

I'm not interested in changing you. Knowing personally what an unchanging mind is like you of all people you should know that the death penalty for treason (and otherwise) is necessary sometimes. If anyone wants to take up arms and kill people for unlawful reasons, they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves getting killed lawfully. In my opinion, Treason perpetrated for a Civil War (which is what I'm talking about and you seem to be trying to tie in all sorts of shit) is not the same as the January 6th treason (regardless of them flying confederate flags). Those people are rightfully being given monetary and jail time punishment. Declaring war on America, taking up arms, and killing people because you didn't like the election results, or you don't like the immigration policy, or you just want to own the democrats should be discouraged by exercising the highest punishment available by Law. That's just me. It's not like they don't have other options.

No. Death as a penalty after the fact, that is not justice. It is never justice. It robs us of perspective.

I will immediately act to protect someone, even if it is at the expense of the attacker's life. This is very different from killing the attacker after they are down. The only time for killing is when the situation presents the choice of change or death and a choice is made to not change.

 

[TomC]

I'm not interested in changing you. Knowing personally what an unchanging mind is like you of all people you should know that the death penalty for treason (and otherwise) is necessary sometimes. If anyone wants to take up arms and kill people for unlawful reasons, they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves getting killed lawfully. In my opinion, Treason perpetrated for a Civil War (which is what I'm talking about and you seem to be trying to tie in all sorts of shit) is not the same as the January 6th treason (regardless of them flying confederate flags). Those people are rightfully being given monetary and jail time punishment. Declaring war on America, taking up arms, and killing people because you didn't like the election results, or you don't like the immigration policy, or you just want to own the democrats should be discouraged by exercising the highest punishment available by Law. That's just me. It's not like they don't have other options.

No. Death as a penalty after the fact, that is not justice. It is never justice. It robs us of perspective.

I will immediately act to protect someone, even if it is at the expense of the attacker's life. This is very different from killing the attacker after they are down. The only time for killing is when the situation presents the choice of change or death and a choice is made to not change.

I'm with Jarhyn on this.
There are some circumstances where a convicted perp can remain a threat to law abiding people even after they're in prison. Examples would be drug lords, terrorist leaders, and gang leaders. But they are the exceptions, not the norms.
Most of the time, capital punishment is just simple vengeance. At best. Sometimes, it's just shutting up the people who actually know what really happened, permanently.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I'm not interested in changing you. Knowing personally what an unchanging mind is like you of all people you should know that the death penalty for treason (and otherwise) is necessary sometimes. If anyone wants to take up arms and kill people for unlawful reasons, they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves getting killed lawfully. In my opinion, Treason perpetrated for a Civil War (which is what I'm talking about and you seem to be trying to tie in all sorts of shit) is not the same as the January 6th treason (regardless of them flying confederate flags). Those people are rightfully being given monetary and jail time punishment. Declaring war on America, taking up arms, and killing people because you didn't like the election results, or you don't like the immigration policy, or you just want to own the democrats should be discouraged by exercising the highest punishment available by Law. That's just me. It's not like they don't have other options.

No. Death as a penalty after the fact, that is not justice. It is never justice. It robs us of perspective.

I will immediately act to protect someone, even if it is at the expense of the attacker's life. This is very different from killing the attacker after they are down. The only time for killing is when the situation presents the choice of change or death and a choice is made to not change.

Killing an attacker after they are down? What exactly are you talking about? Your second statement seems to indicate that you get it. I'll be specific.

Everyone has the freedom of choice up until they do some stupid shit that allows the State's and/or Fed's to lawfully remove some freedom by throwing you behind bars. You get a trial (whether you want one or not) and if you get proven guilty your sentence is decided. If the death penalty is the sentence you still have the freedom to appeal. I'm not sure if the last part happens at every level of government courts (I doubt it), but the fact you were not killed on-site and actually made it to trial is way more forgiving than you've been to end up with the death penalty in the first place. I'm ok with that. I personally favor mercy, but I'm not delusional. There are some things that people have done deliberately & unrepentantly, which in my opinion deserves the harshes punishment allowable by law. To me, one of them is taking up arms and killing your fellow citizen to overthrow or go to war with the government.

Don't like America? There are options. The civil rights movement for example. African American's have freedom today (more given than after the Civil War) with the help of many white allies using America's system the legal way (without taking up arms). If anyone is an example of change done the right way it's us. Get off that dumbass Hitler and General Lee-loving shit already. They were horrible leaders that failed you big time.

The Death penalty does not and never will prevent the crimes for which it's put to use. That's not its main purpose although it does deter some people. Its main purpose however is to put to death those that deserve it. Now unless you believe no one has done anything or can do anything worthy enough to be sentenced to death for, we're done here.

 

[Gospel]

I'm not interested in changing you. Knowing personally what an unchanging mind is like you of all people you should know that the death penalty for treason (and otherwise) is necessary sometimes. If anyone wants to take up arms and kill people for unlawful reasons, they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves getting killed lawfully. In my opinion, Treason perpetrated for a Civil War (which is what I'm talking about and you seem to be trying to tie in all sorts of shit) is not the same as the January 6th treason (regardless of them flying confederate flags). Those people are rightfully being given monetary and jail time punishment. Declaring war on America, taking up arms, and killing people because you didn't like the election results, or you don't like the immigration policy, or you just want to own the democrats should be discouraged by exercising the highest punishment available by Law. That's just me. It's not like they don't have other options.

No. Death as a penalty after the fact, that is not justice. It is never justice. It robs us of perspective.

I will immediately act to protect someone, even if it is at the expense of the attacker's life. This is very different from killing the attacker after they are down. The only time for killing is when the situation presents the choice of change or death and a choice is made to not change.

I'm with Jarhyn on this.
There are some circumstances where a convicted perp can remain a threat to law abiding people even after they're in prison. Examples would be drug lords, terrorist leaders, and gang leaders. But they are the exceptions, not the norms.
Most of the time, capital punishment is just simple vengeance. At best. Sometimes, it's just shutting up the people who actually know what really happened, permanently.
Tom

Oh so let me get this straight.

No Nuances like adding emotional content. Just look at the situation as written.


A) An officer arrives on the scene and sees a woman holding a gun to a man's head, the officer fires on the woman killing her. The man lives and the woman is dead. Was it ok for the officer to kill the women?
b) An officer arrives on the scene and sees a woman holding a gun to a man's head, the woman kills the man & immediately drops her gun & surrenders. The woman is arrested, put on trial, and is found guilty of murder. Is it ok for officers to kill the woman now?

I'm curious.

Edit: Wait maybe I should start my own thread.

 

[TomC]

I'm with Jarhyn on this.
There are some circumstances where a convicted perp can remain a threat to law abiding people even after they're in prison. Examples would be drug lords, terrorist leaders, and gang leaders. But they are the exceptions, not the norms.
Most of the time, capital punishment is just simple vengeance. At best. Sometimes, it's just shutting up the people who actually know what really happened, permanently.
Tom

Oh so let me get this straight.

No Nuances like adding emotional content. Just look at the situation as written.

A) An officer arrives on the scene and sees a woman holding a gun to a man's head, the officer fires on the woman killing her. The man lives and the woman is dead. Was it ok for the officer to kill the women?

Not enough information.
Why was she doing it? In the sense of , "was she holding the gun to get attention?" Once she got it, was she still a big threat?
Was there another option for the cops?

Etc.

b) An officer arrives on the scene and sees a woman holding a gun to a man's head, the woman kills the man & immediately drops her gun & surrenders. The woman is arrested, put on trial, and is found guilty of murder. Is it ok for officers to kill the woman now?

I'm curious.

Not by my standards of morality.
If there's a credible reason to think that the perp remains a threat to others, that's one thing. If the reason for offing the perp is just because it makes people feel good to kill people they hate, then no. That's vengeance, which I consider morally on par with most murders.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Honestly, I shouldn't have asked this here. I'll start a thread in the near future. I really want to explore this one.