PDA

View Full Version : Socio-political views



Maciamo
10-08-06, 00:59
With how many of the following statements can you agree ?


PART 1 : Crime & Society


- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.

- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers.

- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences.

- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty.

- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs.

- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society.

- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted.

- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain.

- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such).

- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...).


TOTAL : /10

Ma Cherie
10-08-06, 06:01
Euthanasia: I agree that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. As well as assisted suicide.

Child rapists: They are as bad as murderers. But I don't know if they should be sentenced to death. I feel that life in prison without the possibility parole is enough.

Abortion: Abortion on demand should be legal in all cases up to 12 weeks. However, I don't think abortion should be illegal during the second and third trimesters. The reason why I feel this way is because there's always that possibility that a woman's life is danger and there's the possibility that she may have to undergo a late term abortion.

People responsible for the death of numorous people: The death penalty should be considered, but only for reasons of concern for other people.

Need more time to think the other issues through.

cursore
10-08-06, 10:19
- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.

No, would be enough to make them pay back the expenses



- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers.

Of course!


- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences.

Yes


- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty.

No death, in Italy we have the 41bis whish is way way better than death



- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs.

Yes as long as it is respectful.


- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society.

No


- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted.

That is talking! so the government will have more money, less STD around, less criminality.


- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain.

Cannot answer that



- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such).

only light drugs



- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...).

cannot answer that.

Kinsao
10-08-06, 14:54
- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.
No, it's not so bad as robbery or rape.


- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers..
Yes


- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences..
Yes


- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty..
No


- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs..
Yes


- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society..
No


- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted..
Cannot answer


- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain..
No


- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such)..
No


- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...)..
Should be legal if the mother's life is in danger/health cannot support it.

Minty
10-08-06, 22:39
With how many of the following statements can you agree ?


PART 1 : Crime & Society


- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.

No, it is not as serious, they should not be jailed but they should pay a costy fine or sent to do public services for free for a certain period of time to learn and make up for the damages they cost the government to clean up.


- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers.
Yes, indeed. This would take ages to recover, some never able to recover from this kind of trauma.


- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences.

Hmm I think they should get tough prison sentences and should be sent to do community services to teach them lessons, but if they show they can change they can get their sentence reduced. Stealing is not as serious as physically harming a person like rape and murder.


- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty.

I don't believe in death sentences. There has been cases where they accussed the wrong person of crime, once the person is dead you can't bring him/her back, I think they should get extremely tough prison sentences. Our science and technology is improving and sometimes they get a better way to determine scientific facts to prove a personfs crime. Also evidences can be faked.


- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs.

Agree.



- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society.

Hmmm, I don't believe in capital punishment...I already explained abovec



- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted.

I supposed


- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain.

Undecided


- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such).

No


- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...).

Undecided.

Maciamo
11-08-06, 11:12
No, it is not as serious, they should not be jailed but they should pay a costy fine or sent to do public services for free for a certain period of time to learn and make up for the damages they cost the government to clean up.

This is already the case in many places and it hasn't changed the situation. Most of the vandals are disoccupied people in need for attention. Making them do public service is only a way to "reward" them by giving them that attention and occupation. It's a bit like sending a homeless guy to jail for a few days because he insulted/hit a policeman on purpose so that he could get free food and accommodation in jail. I think there is nothing more immature for the authorities to reward people for their crimes/offenses.

Some historical buildings cannot be cleaned up (from graffiti) without causing some slight damage to the building. After numerous cleanings the materials wear away. It is really sad when a 15th-century building with statues and carvings in the stone that have withstood the test of time for so long get damaged by vandals.

As for graffiti in general, I see them as a form of "public rape", i.e. a disfiguration or mutilation of the public space.


Hmm I think they should get tough prison sentences and should be sent to do community services to teach them lessons, but if they show they can change they can get their sentence reduced. Stealing is not as serious as physically harming a person like rape and murder.

Have you considered that thieves/robbers may be ordinary people who already have a job, maybe even social workers or civil servants ? Giving them "community services" as punishment will not make them "better people". Some thieves do look like "good people" until you know they steal.


I don't believe in death sentences. There has been cases where they accussed the wrong person of crime, once the person is dead you can't bring him/her back, I think they should get extremely tough prison sentences.

That's why I gave as examples :

1) leaders of terrorist organisations => even if they didn't kill people with their own hands, they gave the orders and so carry the responsibility. Terrorist leaders are usually well-known public figures (e.g. Osama Bin Laden, Hamas leaders, Shoko Asahara of Aum Shinrikyo...). There is no mistake possible about their identity.

2) a person who shoots dozens of people in a shopping mall (with surveillance cameras) and is arrested on the spot. There is no possible mistake about the identity of that kind of mass murderer.

I think it is aberrant for a country's tax payers to have to pay for the food, lodging, water/gas/electricity, fitness equipement, books, and all other things found in modern prisons, for individuals who have killed many people with premediation, when there is clearly no doubt about their culpability.

MeAndroo
11-08-06, 23:25
- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.

I also agree vandalism isn't as serious as robbery or rape. Depending on the severity, vandalism is something that can be remedied to the point where it's as though it never happened. The same doesn't go for robbery or rape.


- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers.

I don't know if anything is as bad as murder, but rape, especially of a minor, is pretty damn close. There's a reason these guys are specifically targeted in prisons.


- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences.

Serial criminals should always be treated more harshly than first time offenders. "Tough" is subjective, however, so I guess I'd just add "increasingly" to the wording.


- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty.

I don't like the death penalty. I think it's barbaric, I think tons of money that could be better spent is used on appeals, and I feel like it doesn't really deter crime. I also wonder how you would define this. Is it based on a single, large incident (like a Timothy McVeigh) or a number of smaller crimes over a longer period of time? What's the distinction between someone who kills 5 people and someone who kills 10? Is there one? This question would be fun to discuss in more detail.


- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs.

Yes. Community service is the least they can do. Whether it's picking up trash on the freeway, making license plates, whatever. They shouldn't be sweat-shop exploited, but something other than working out and cable TV should come with imprisonment.


- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society.

This is kind of tied in with an earlier topic, but I'd love to see how much money is spent fighting the appeals of the condemned compared with how much is spent on their room and board. I wonder if the difference would be great enough to make up for my moral objections.


- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted.

Agree. But how would we make sure all earnings are reported? Seems like they wouldn't be the most diligent taxpayers, especially if it was a sudden switch and all the people who were doing it anyways can do it out in the open.


- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain.

Agree. This is a personal thing, and people should be at peace when they die, if at all possible.


- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such).

As long as they are regulated beyond the point of alcohol, since restrictions placed on that don't seem to keep people from abusing it. If you're going to consume a controlled substance, make sure you don't harm others while you're on it.


- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...).

I hate abortion. Hate it. I think it's cruel and destroys a beautiful natural process. But I can see why people would want to be able to undergo such a procedure, and I can't find a reason to fight its legality. The abortion issue will always boil down to the definition of when a fetus is considered a person, and people who argue this issue often have difficulty agreeing on the terms.

Minty
22-08-06, 23:33
This is already the case in many places and it hasn't changed the situation. Most of the vandals are disoccupied people in need for attention. Making them do public service is only a way to "reward" them by giving them that attention and occupation. It's a bit like sending a homeless guy to jail for a few days because he insulted/hit a policeman on purpose so that he could get free food and accommodation in jail. I think there is nothing more immature for the authorities to reward people for their crimes/offenses.
Some historical buildings cannot be cleaned up (from graffiti) without causing some slight damage to the building. After numerous cleanings the materials wear away. It is really sad when a 15th-century building with statues and carvings in the stone that have withstood the test of time for so long get damaged by vandals.

As for graffiti in general, I see them as a form of "public rape", i.e. a disfiguration or mutilation of the public space.
I still believe a person deserves a second chance to change, I think there should be way to teach them a lesson. Most delinquents come from abused backgrounds, some are just immature. Maybe they can be sent to the army to be discipline. I still don't think it is the same as rape and robbery.


Have you considered that thieves/robbers may be ordinary people who already have a job, maybe even social workers or civil servants ? Giving them "community services" as punishment will not make them "better people". Some thieves do look like "good people" until you know they steal.

That's not all they get, they also get sent to jail but if they show good behaviour in jail and from doing charity work or community services they can get their sentence reduced. If they have any conscience at all they should understand being good would reduce their punishment. This is a way to learn...if they don't behave say after they got out of jail they commit crimes again, the second time they should get very tough prison sentences.


That's why I gave as examples :
1) leaders of terrorist organisations => even if they didn't kill people with their own hands, they gave the orders and so carry the responsibility. Terrorist leaders are usually well-known public figures (e.g. Osama Bin Laden, Hamas leaders, Shoko Asahara of Aum Shinrikyo...). There is no mistake possible about their identity.
2) a person who shoots dozens of people in a shopping mall (with surveillance cameras) and is arrested on the spot. There is no possible mistake about the identity of that kind of mass murderer.
I think it is aberrant for a country's tax payers to have to pay for the food, lodging, water/gas/electricity, fitness equipement, books, and all other things found in modern prisons, for individuals who have killed many people with premediation, when there is clearly no doubt about their culpability.

Hmmm I don't see any examples given in your first post. If there are no mistakes about the person who committed the crime, I still don't believe in Capital punishment, I think harsh prison punishment is enough. Serious criminals should not get leisure items like fitness equipment, books...etc...Many criminals who got sent to jail are poor people who cannot afford a good lawyer. I can't argue for terrorists like bin laden or Hamas...I can't say I have sympathy for them, but there are people who innocent who got convicted because they couldn't afford a good lawyer due to social economic status. How about the relatives of the person being executed? Why doesnft anybody care about them? Is it civilized to regard them as outcasts too?

Kinsao
23-08-06, 13:07
Hmm, just on the community service issue... I think that often the community service is not really tough enough to act as a deterrent, and that's why it seems like the criminals get an easy option that way. It should be a hard work, and combined with a prison time. Enough so that the hardship of doing the works is greater than the 'reward' of getting attention.

I think using an evocative term like "public rape" about graffiti is stretching a point too far... no way is damage to a building, however historical, valuable and beautiful, comparable with the both physical and mental damage caused to a person by rape. Hypothetically, if you could save your friend from a rape by the total destruction of...ummm... Notre Dame cathedral for example, will you say "Let's keep the cathedral"?

I too am against the death penalty... I think it's wrong to kill a person even if they did kill someone or many... It seems hypocritical to me. We would say "It's wrong to kill... so, you did so... we are going to kill you"????? That doesn't make sense. My view is that killing itself is wrong regardless of the situation or circumstances, and if you can't hold to that view, why is the murderer in the wrong then? If they were terrorist, were they not fighting for the cause they believe in, so could you say the blindness of their mindset excuses them? That they genuinely thought the benefit of their 'cause' to society outweighed the deaths they cause, in the same way that we think the benefit of their death to society outweighs the fact of us killing them? (That's just as example; I know it doesn't nearly address all of serious crimes/serial murders. :bluush: )

Anyway, 'moral' aside - people on the death penalty don't get executed straight away; there has to be the evidence, appeals, and usually they end up actually being in prison for a long time before their execution. This would cost as much as if they'd been sentenced to an imprisonment. I'm no means well read on the subject, but just off the top of my head, here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1397) is an article with some info about the length of time prisoners spent on death row. It is said to be usually over a decade and in some cases over 20 years.

Personally I think that an imprisonment, with of course no privileges, punishment hard works and periods of solitary confinement, would be an equally suitable punishment. Prisoners could also be given the option of consenting to be used for medical experiments e.g. drugs testing.

Maciamo
23-08-06, 17:16
I think using an evocative term like "public rape" about graffiti is stretching a point too far... no way is damage to a building, however historical, valuable and beautiful, comparable with the both physical and mental damage caused to a person by rape. Hypothetically, if you could save your friend from a rape by the total destruction of...ummm... Notre Dame cathedral for example, will you say "Let's keep the cathedral"?

I thought that no one would hesitate in this case. It seems so obvious to me that a historical building of the importance of Notre Dame cathedral is so much more valuable than a single life (and I am not even Christian or religious !). Have you thought of how many thousands people have worked for so many years to built such a cathedral ? Have you thought of the cultural importance it has had for millions of people to this day ? Why do you think that the American government ordered not to bombed Kyoto at all, when they had no scruples to kill millions of civilians by bombing other cities and even "test" their A-bomb on civilian populations ? This is because a country's historical heritage is so much more valuable than individual human lives. We will all die one day, but great historical buildings will remain for the posterity, make people dream and wonder, and remember their ancestors or the artistic and technological advancement of other civilisations. So no I don't think that it is too strong to refer vandalism as "public rape". It is even historical and cultural rape - and not surprisingly in Belgium's case, it is committed by misadapted immigrants whose religion approves of destroying works of arts that depict human faces (=> see the Taleban's destruction of 1500 year-old Buddhist sites in Afghanistan, which brought dismay and condemnation from the international community). If you place so little value in historical, cultural and artistic achievements, what is your purpose to society and civilisation ?



I too am against the death penalty... I think it's wrong to kill a person even if they did kill someone or many... It seems hypocritical to me. We would say "It's wrong to kill... so, you did so... we are going to kill you"????? That doesn't make sense.

Does it make more sense to force innocent tax-payers to support the country's worst criminals rotting in jails for the rest of their lives ? When you think about it no punishment really "makes sense". Justice and penalties are always subjective and somewhat illogical, except maybe doing to someone the exact same things as they did to others. However that latter alternative doesn't always work (you are not going to steal from the homeless who stole from you and doesn't own anything) and does not usually solve problems (except for capital punishment :relief: ).

You think it is hypocritical to execute someone who murdered someone, because in your head (according to your own wors above), you just think "kill vs kill", when in fact it is "execute vs murder", which is very different. If you cannot understand that, then you may have problems understanding the boundaries between "making love", "having sex" (without love), "having sex with someone drunk when they would not have done it in a sober state" and "rape". Human behaviour if full of nuances. Without those nuances, indeed rape is just sex, borrowing your father's camera without asking is stealing, and executing someone is just murder. But that is not the case.

The purpose of capital punishment for serial murderers is 1) to punish them, 2) to prevent them from killing again, 3) to deter other people from doing the same, and 4) avoid wasting tax money to support the life of the worst people when it could be spent to help "good" poor or homeless people. Terrorists, or religious fanatics who have killed for their beliefs, are people who will kill again after leaving jail, even in 20 or 30 years' time. Sentence for life often get softened down into 20 or 30 years' sentences, so it's just too dangerous.


Anyway, 'moral' aside - people on the death penalty don't get executed straight away; there has to be the evidence, appeals, and usually they end up actually being in prison for a long time before their execution.

That shouldn't happen for the above-mentioned people (e.g. terrorist leaders). The process should be much faster once there is undeniable evidence of their guilt.

But I do oppose death penalty for anything else than murder, for murder that aren't clear (no large crowd and cameras testifying of the events) or are not serial. Just to show that I am not for harsh punishment in general, I would give very little punishment (if any at all) for a manslaughter, i.e. killing someone by accident. The punishment would depend on aggravating circumstances (e.g. causing a fatal car accident while being drunk) or whwther carelessness/irresponsibility was involved or not. If it is sheer bad luck and nothing could have been done to prevent the fatal accident, then the accused should walk free. This is rarely the case as the victim's family will do all they can to have somebody (sometimes just anybody) to pay. I am also for the decriminalisation of drug use, prostitution, voluntary euthanasia, etc. (basically all things that are already legal in Belgium and the Netherlands). So I am fairly liberal, but am nevertheless for death penalty in the obvious and extreme cases mentioned in my previous post.


Prisoners could also be given the option of consenting to be used for medical experiments e.g. drugs testing.

Good idea, but for vandals, thieves, rapists or murderers with mitigating circumstances - not terrorists or serial killers.

American Idiot
25-11-13, 13:54
With how many of the following statements can you agree ?


PART 1 : Crime & Society


- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.

- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers.

- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences.

- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty.

- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs.

- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society.

- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted.

- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain.

- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such).

- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...).


TOTAL : /10
I agree with all of these.....except for abortion. Dont think it should necessarily always be legal, just whatever the reason.

Aberdeen
26-11-13, 07:41
With how many of the following statements can you agree ?


PART 1 : Crime & Society


- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.

- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers.

- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences.

- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty.

- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs.

- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society.

- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted.

- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain.

- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such).

- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...).


TOTAL : /10

Thus sprach zarathustra.

I agree with all of it. Especially the part about abortion - I will never have something living growing inside me, it's scientifically impossible, so I don't think I have the right to second-guess someone who finds themselves in that situation. As for voluntary euthanasia, I'm sure that everyone who's in favour of it would agree on the importance of some mechanism to ensure that the person is actually capable of making such a decision in full awareness. That's hinted at above, but I think it's very important.

To me, there are two important ideas missing from this list; the importance of creating much stronger anti-pollution requirements (without which our race is doomed) and a need for national controls on multi-national corporations, since they are currently one of the biggest threats to democracy and to national economies, IMO.

adamo
26-11-13, 08:27
I agree that you have a huge pair of them between your legs, american idiot

American Idiot
26-11-13, 08:49
I agree that you have a huge pair of them between your legs, american idiot

how nice of you to notice, thanks (LOL)

adamo
26-11-13, 10:05
Thank those that made you, not me

adamo
26-11-13, 10:13
Im no different than obi wan kenobi in return of the jedi, you see? As you down that blunt i stand behind you supporting you with my hands on your shoulders and a smile on my face; all this in spirit-form. We are BOTH smoking it, although only you take each rotation; i get ripped as f_ _ _ none the less. Im just like Vader ; against you the whole story but then at the end you see me floating in spirit form and smiling at you once defeated.

Templar
26-11-13, 10:32
To me, there are two important ideas missing from this list; the importance of creating much stronger anti-pollution requirements (without which our race is doomed) and a need for national controls on multi-national corporations

I think that anti-pollution requirements should only be put in place if all countries (including the biggest polluter; China) are involved. In the last 30 years it has been pretty much only a handful of countries (mostly in Western Europe) that have taken any kind of significant measures to limit carbon emissions. Their economies probably suffered from this due to how impractical such a process is (moving away from non-renewable to renewable energy sources), yet carbon emissions are higher now than they have ever been before due to countries like India, Brazil, Mexico, and China (developing countries with large populations).

Nobody1
26-11-13, 13:13
Im no different than obi wan kenobi in return of the jedi, you see? As you down that blunt i stand behind you supporting you with my hands on your shoulders and a smile on my face; all this in spirit-form. We are BOTH smoking it, although only you take each rotation; i get ripped as f_ _ _ none the less. Im just like Vader ; against you the whole story but then at the end you see me floating in spirit form and smiling at you once defeated.

http://replygif.net/i/222.gif

Aberdeen
26-11-13, 17:22
I think that anti-pollution requirements should only be put in place if all countries (including the biggest polluter; China) are involved. In the last 30 years it has been pretty much only a handful of countries (mostly in Western Europe) that have taken any kind of significant measures to limit carbon emissions. Their economies probably suffered from this due to how impractical such a process is (moving away from non-renewable to renewable energy sources), yet carbon emissions are higher now than they have ever been before due to countries like India, Brazil, Mexico, and China (developing countries with large populations).

Yes, now I think about that, I very much agree. Perhaps what we need is for the United Nations to get serious about enforcing environmental controls. After all, it's such and effective organization (not).

toyomotor
01-12-13, 00:37
With how many of the following statements can you agree ?


PART 1 : Crime & Society


- Vandalism against historical buildings is a serious crime, like robbery or rape.

- Child rapist are at least as bad as murderers.

- Serial pickpockets and burglars should get tough prison sentences.

- People responsible for the death of numerous people (e.g. terrorist leaders), and who have publicly taken responsibility for their crimes (e.g. in a speech) or were taken red-handed (e.g. madman shooting and killings dozens in a crowded public place), should be sentenced to the death penalty.

- People serving long prison sentences for violent crimes should pay back part of their burden to society by doing forced labour useful to society or profitable to the government with money financing their own prison costs.

- Death penalty should be considered as a way to reduce the burden of tax payers, who support the food and accommodation cost of lifetime prisoners, by eliminating the worst people from society.

- Voluntary prostitution (e.g. without pimp) should be legal (and therefore taxed and regulated), as long as both parties are consenting adults. Forced prostitution should always be banned, and pimps prosecuted.

- Voluntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient request it in full awareness), should be legal for people with uncurable diseases suffering unbearable pain.

- Any drug use or possession should NOT be illegal, as anybody is free to do what they want with their body (naturally, stealing in order to get drugs is theft and should be treated as such).

- Abortion of up to 3-month-old foetus should be legal, whatever the reason (rape, lack of father, too young age or feeble health of the mother, lack of maturity from parents, lack finances to support a child...).


TOTAL : /10

Maciamo: I agree with all of the above, with the exception of the Death Penalty. The history of the USA has shown that imposition of the death penalty does not deter people from killing, raping etc. What's the old saying? "Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man die". I would rather see convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters sentenced to life imprisonment-meaning until the day they die-with hard labour. I don't see why some of this scum who are beyond rehabilitation should sit back absorbing taxpayers money without doing something to offset the expense it takes to incarcerate them. All prisoners should have to work.

Rlangarrox
03-10-19, 05:53
I think what the last few years has shown is that no improvements in political messaging have been made since "call it mean names and impugn its character" was invented.