Wayne Dohertys murder

Fink Goddie

Pace2008 wrote: »

And you're still creating these false dilemmas, suggesting that anyone who's in favour of due process and against the death penalty is somehow condoning the actions of these people. You have no idea how to construct an argument and don't have the ability to debate this topic.

Using your broken logic I can deduce that since you believe that one waives their human rights by committing the act of murder, you are against human rights and by extension against humanity itself.

Are you targeting the poster and not the posts, i think you are, what did Uncle Terry say about that earlier!!!

Pleading for the rights of scumbags and not coming up with anything constructive to in any way compensate the victims of the crime is as bad as condoning the crime.

Yes raping and murdering a little innocent child for example waives your human rights, a person that does that is an animal and should be treated like one.

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Pleading for the rights of scumbags and not coming up with anything constructive to in any way compensate the victims of the crime is as bad as condoning the crime.

False dichotomy.
And utter bullshit.

Mainly because your bar for a "constructive way" only amounts to agreeing with you. Remember the "us and them" thing i talked about earlier, this is an even worse example.
And that shit don't fly.

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Yes raping and murdering a little innocent child for example waives your human rights, a person that does that is an animal and should be treated like one.

no it doesn't. Infact that's the time their rights are most important, so we can punish them without becoming like them in terms of cruelty and inhumanity.
if we didn't how are we any better than they?

Pace2008

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Are you targeting the poster and not the posts, i think you are, what did Uncle Terry say about that earlier!!!

Edited as it may have come across as a personal attack.

Although I don't see how your cries of 'pro-scumbag!' are in any way constructive.

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

And you stunningly missed the point, both of you.

I can't promise i'd be calm if someone in my family was murdered, and i acknowledge that i'd likely do something stupid, given the oppertunity.

the point, you continue to miss (and it's one of many. you're dodging these things like neo) is that i want the law of the land to protect it's citizens from my rage and the poor decision making it would result in.
IF i were the victim i'd be in no position to render a fair judgement because i'd be angry.
It's a retarded idea to let people decide the fate of those that have wronged them, it's WHY we have a justice system in the first place.




if that's how you like to paint me, go ahead. I make no appologies. for believeing that everybody has basic immuatble rights, if that makes me "pro-scum" to you then that's cool.
I don't really give your opinion much weight.
Because the bit you forget in your hissy fit of moral outrage and outright lack of reasoning is the rights i want 'scum' to have are the same rights i want you to have.

You can't strip someone of their rights because your angry and want a simple solution, because if you do that you also remove your own
No due process for scum, no due process for you.

Is this becoming clear or do i need to put on a puppet show?

But who's protecting the victims of the scumbags??
Why should scum have the same rights i have, they should lose those rights when they take away an innocent persons rights, the state should take them away by the death penalty and if the family wish, they should implement the death penalty in whichever way they want.
Our justice system is not working at the moment.

So about that muppet puppet show, should be interesting. Lord of puppets!

Fink Goddie

Pace2008 wrote: »

Edited as it may have come across as a personal attack.

Although I don't see how your cries of 'pro-scumbag!' are in any way constructive.

Neither are personal attacks xxx

Ziggurat

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Yes raping and murdering a little innocent child for example waives your human rights, a person that does that is an animal and should be treated like one.

Says who? You?

Fink Goddie wrote: »

But who's protecting the victims of the scumbags??

Who do you think?

Why should scum have the same rights i have, they should lose those rights when they take away an innocent persons rights,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask, why? Give me a reasonable argument why that should be the case.

the state should take them away by the death penalty and if the family wish, they should implement the death penalty in whichever way they want.

Ah, so you want revenge, not justice.

Our justice system is not working at the moment.

See above.

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

False dichotomy.
And utter bullshit.

Mainly because your bar for a "constructive way" only amounts to agreeing with you. Remember the "us and them" thing i talked about earlier, this is an even worse example.
And that shit don't fly.




no it doesn't. Infact that's the time their rights are most important, so we can punish them without becoming like them in terms of cruelty and inhumanity.
if we didn't how are we any better than they?

And the rights of the child????

Well i can see the difference between a person who rapes and murders a child and someone who sentences that evil person to death to protect other innocent children and society, and to give peace of mind to the family that the monster that killed their child is gone for good.

Can you not spot the difference. This is easier than a game of where's Wally fellas, its not hard!

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

But who's protecting the victims of the scumbags??

The police. I know you don't believe it, but that's because you're also convinced we're in a state of anarchy. Your grip on events is somewhat less than tight, to put it mildly.


I think you're under the misguided impression that if we removed the rights of 'scum' and had the death penality then we'd be living in some sort of crime free paradise.
This wouldn't be the case and you need only look to any nation (including singapore, before you start) to see this.

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Why should scum have the same rights i have, they should lose those rights when they take away an innocent persons rights, the state should take them away by the death penalty and if the family wish, they should implement the death penalty in whichever way they want.

No, for the last fucking time no. The family should have no say. none what so ever.
This has been explained to you a thousand times, so kindly come up with a reason beyond your childish view of revenge.

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Our justice system is not working at the moment.

yes it is. You're just being a sensationalist whiner now.

tbh

tbh wrote: »

It's not about who makes the law. It's about who sets out the punishment. For example, lets say you were done speeding, 5K over the limit. And your case was heard by a judge who, two days before, had his dog killed by someone driving a similar car to you who was also going 5K over the limit. Your solicitor comes to you five minutes before your case is due to be heard. He says "you can, if you want, request another judge, or you can stick with this one".

Answer me honestly, what would you do?

just wondering if you saw this, fink.

Fink Goddie

Ziggurat wrote: »

Says who? You?



Who do you think?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask, why? Give me a reasonable argument why that should be the case.

Ah, so you want revenge, not justice.

See above.

So you dont agree that a person who murders and rapes a child is acting like an animal, no??
They're rights should be taken away because they took the rights of an inocent child away and are a danger to society.

Every child has the right to play on the street and not be in danger, so to satisfy the rights of the majority we'd be taking away the rights of one person.

There's your reasonable argument!

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The police. I know you don't believe it, but that's because you're also convinced we're in a state of anarchy. Your grip on events is somewhat less than tight, to put it mildly.


I think you're under the misguided impression that if we removed the rights of 'scum' and had the death penality then we'd be living in some sort of crime free paradise.
This wouldn't be the case and you need only look to any nation (including singapore, before you start) to see this.





No, for the last fucking time no. The family should have no say. none what so ever.
This has been explained to you a thousand times, so kindly come up with a reason beyond your childish view of revenge.




yes it is. You're just being a sensationalist whiner now.

Ah are you getting a little vexed Lord??? Are my arguments too good for you to handle. calm down my friend.

Singapore has a very low crime rate!!! your point??

Fink Goddie

tbh wrote: »

just wondering if you saw this, fink.

Oh here's the guy that thinks the crime is irrelavant again, crimes against AH first, now we have speeding.
We're talking about murder here.

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

And the rights of the child????

Well i can see the difference between a person who rapes and murders a child and someone who sentences that evil person to death to protect other innocent children and society, and to give peace of mind to the family that the monster that killed their child is gone for good.

Can you not spot the difference. This is easier than a game of where's Wally fellas, its not hard!

I'm done here. We're arguing in circles and your posts are becoming more and more like reading the daily mail.

I don't pay for that lowest common denominator hysteria and bull****, i'm certainly not wasting my time with someone who can't post without screaming "think of the children" inbetween mocing the goalposts, making appeals to fear and pretending that anyone who can see the flaws in every one of your ideas is some kind of monster.

EVERYTHING you've said on this thread is wrong, without exception. Your opinions are without merit or value.

Ziggurat

Fink Goddie wrote: »

So you dont agree that a person who murders and rapes a child is acting like an animal, no??

Acting, perhaps. But if I quack does that make me a duck?

They're rights should be taken away because they took the rights of an inocent child away and are a danger to society.

So you can say for sure they will re-offend?

Every child has the right to play on the street and not be in danger, so too satisfy the rights of the majority we'd be taking away the rights of one person.

There's your reasonable argument!

While prison itself is a case of the state abrogating certain rights (albeit temporarily) this is not done simply on the fear of one person or a group of people.
Certainly, criminals are entitled to repent for their crimes, turn themselves around and become productive members of society - that should be the goal of any justice system.

Another question, though. When you say their rights should be revoked, what rights are you talking about? All or just some.

tbh

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Oh here's the guy that thinks the crime is irrelavant again, crimes against AH first, now we have speeding.
We're talking about murder here.

can you please just answer the question?

edit: actually, LOC is right. Forget it.

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm done here. We're arguing in circles and your posts are becoming more and more like reading the daily mail.

I don't pay for that lowest common denominator hysteria and bull****, i'm certainly not wasting my time with someone who can't post without screaming "think of the children" inbetween mocing the goalposts, making appeals to fear and pretending that anyone who can see the flaws in every one of your ideas is some kind of monster.

EVERYTHING you've said on this thread is wrong, without exception. Your opinions are without merit or value.

So you're giving up, so i won the argument.
Good stuff, knew i was right.

What about Singapore, they have a very low crime rate, thats not WRONG, its a fact.

Better luck next time anyway Lord!

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm done here. We're arguing in circles and your posts are becoming more and more like reading the daily mail.

I don't pay for that lowest common denominator hysteria and bull****, i'm certainly not wasting my time with someone who can't post without screaming "think of the children" inbetween mocing the goalposts, making appeals to fear and pretending that anyone who can see the flaws in every one of your ideas is some kind of monster.

EVERYTHING you've said on this thread is wrong, without exception. Your opinions are without merit or value.

OH and this is a personal attack, attack the post not the poster.
Where's uncle Terry??

tbh

Fink Goddie wrote: »

So you're giving up, so i won the argument.
Good stuff, knew i was right.

This is what I hate most about boards. You actually believe that. You come into a thread with a pov and your aim isn't to develop it, it's to defend it at all costs. I have to say, people like you are a cancer on this site, and the worst thing is, you couldn't give a crap.. and if I get banned for that comment, it'll be worth it.

IvyTheTerrible

Fink Goddie wrote: »

So you're giving up, so i won the argument.
Good stuff, knew i was right.

What about Singapore, they have a very low crime rate, thats not WRONG, its a fact.

Better luck next time anyway Lord!

It's not an argument if you don't rebut the points the other people made...

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

So you're giving up, so i won the argument.
Good stuff, knew i was right.

No, you weren't, but it's cute that you think so. Have fun with that.

Also - because i'm really a nice guy logical fallacies.
READ IT, AND STOP USING THEM.

You'll be a better person.

Fink Goddie

Ziggurat wrote: »

Acting, perhaps. But if I quack does that make me a duck?

So you can say for sure they will re-offend?

While prison itself is a case of the state abrogating certain rights (albeit temporarily) this is not done simply on the fear of one person or a group of people.
Certainly, criminals are entitled to repent for their crimes, turn themselves around and become productive members of society - that should be the goal of any justice system.

Another question, though. When you say their rights should be revoked, what rights are you talking about? All or just some.

Yes and i said they were ACTING like animals so should be treated LIKE aniamls.

Most do reoffend, question is would you risk your child on the off chance that they woudnt reoffend???..............didnt think so.

Productive members of society, could you have seen Rosemary of Fred West becoming productive members of society???

Eh the death penalty kind of takes away all rights dont you think because they stop breathing

Terry

tbh wrote: »

This is what I hate most about boards. You actually believe that. You come into a thread with a pov and your aim isn't to develop it, it's to defend it at all costs. I have to say, people like you are a cancer on this site, and the worst thing is, you couldn't give a crap.. and if I get banned for that comment, it'll be worth it.

Banned.

Fink Goddie, do not post in this thread again or I will ban you.

Fink Goddie

tbh wrote: »

can you please just answer the question?

edit: actually, LOC is right. Forget it.

Ah dont tell me you've given up too. :D
Hard luck, get better arguments next time

Sorry timing difference, didnt see Terry's post!!!!

Terry

Fink Goddie wrote: »

OH and this is a personal attack, attack the post not the poster.
Where's uncle Terry??

He attacked your opinions, not you personally.
If you have a problem with a post, then report it.

Pace2008

thelordofcheese wrote: »

No, you weren't, but it's cute that you think so. Have fun with that.

Also - because i'm really a nice guy logical fallacies.
READ IT, AND STOP USING THEM.

You'll be a better person.

I was actually playing bingo with this throughout the thread. It's been a slow week at work

Anyway, seems like everyone's bailing. Condolences to Wayne Doherty's family.

smelltheglove

Maybe it is time this thread came to an end, where is bickering going to get anyone? Can we not remember Wayne with respect instead of using his death to have an argument.

An Fear Aniar

thelordofcheese wrote: »

if that's how you like to paint me, go ahead. I make no appologies. for believeing that everybody has basic immuatble rights, if that makes me "pro-scum" to you then that's cool.

Rights aren't immutable, whatever gave you that idea? They're a human construct, a political construct, not some law of nature.

We already deprive certain people of their rights by locking them up - except not for long enough in many cases....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8073659.stm

Earlier, Sonnex had tied up and threatened a couple, and could have been returned to jail, but he was given a verbal warning by his probation officer rather than being the subject of a review.

.

irisheddie

I buried you today why does it hurt so much,luv u wayne sensless totally :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(sensless:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

utick

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The police. I know you don't believe it, but that's because you're also convinced we're in a state of anarchy. Your grip on events is somewhat less than tight, to put it mildly.


.

you may not realise it but, some places are not too far from anarchy.

delmage park is a housing estate in moyross with about 120 occupied houses

http://www.limerickblogger.ie/blog/2006/11/diary-of-a-delmage-park-resident

this is a diary a resident has made detailing shootings and petrol bombs that happened over about a six month period in their estate, if you dont think anarchy exists in some parts of ireland i suggest you read this diary