epluribusunum wrote: » Nothing gets past you. Eejit: A Scot and Irish word for idiot. The person is on your side, and you do not even realize it. Anyway who rebuts with "yawn, boring" to logic and then does not know who is on their side or not- when clearly they have stated their point- is by the definition an eejit. Something tells me you had to sit next time to the smart kids in class...:D
Love2u wrote: » The reason I misread the other persons post was because I was multi tasking!! But thanks for your inspiring reply all the same! And might you be the "eegit" for continuously annoying people in here with your insane thoughts about wanting everyone dead by the death penalty, then you bring "hitler" into the thread. There's one eegit here and it's not me!
epluribusunum wrote: » Multi-tasking? Baby steps I suggest....you are not at the level of reading a sentence and doing another thing yet I guess. I do not want everyone dead, just those deserving. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though. Were you multi-tasking that time too?
catallus wrote: » You're over-analyzing the whole thing.
catallus wrote: » The next scrote doesn't have any incentive to stop offending as things stand.
Love2u wrote: » I think it's time you were banned from writing in here. Your personality is really shining through now. Why don't you sign off and start a new thread on hitler!
Cedrus wrote: » Over Analysing???? It's a gross simplification if anything! Do you really believe that a scrote faced with a series of multiplying sentences will behave the same as another faced with only one ultimate sentence. I believe not. You only have to look at the shyte drivers acting like lunatics on Irish roads who SUDDENLY remember ALL of the Rules of the Road as soon as a squad car appears. On the Hitler question. I believe (from what I know though popular culture rather than proper judicial deliberations) that Hitler and many more, do deserve the death sentence for the crimes they committed, authorised or sanctioned. However, I do not want to be part of a society that would commit this sentence. Killing people is wrong, whoever does it.
epluribusunum wrote: » There is really no response I can give to something as childish as wanting me banned because I have stalled your argument and have a different opinion.
epluribusunum wrote: » Waiting on the Princess...
Love2u wrote: » You are incapable of stating your points without insulting people who disagree with you. So now I think that clearly makes you the "child". My thoughts are still the same " I strongly disagree with death penalty".
catallus wrote: » The princess isn't going to bite! Quick tell us before they ban you please, the world needs to know!
epluribusunum wrote: » Would they really ban me for being in favor of the death penalty? I sure hope not. Because I do not think I have been anymore condescending as the rest of them to be fair.
epluribusunum wrote: » Now, we know you are against the death penalty- good, but we already knew this... So did Hitler's actions deserve the death penalty? Just answer this specific question.
Love2u wrote: » If you start another thread dedicated to "Hitler" I will happily answer the question. Can we stick to the topic on the death penalty. So once again i will tell you "I disagree with death penalty regardless of the circumstances".
catallus wrote: » Yeah, Whatever, you went into personal abuse territory tonight with the eejit comment, that's enough grounds to ban you from the thread. What's the answer to the hitler thing??????
epluribusunum wrote: » What about Hitler though? I am not going to start a thread titled "Hitler" sorry but that would be ridiculous.
Love2u wrote: » No man, woman, child, animal...........deserves death penalty regardless of the circumstances. Death penalty is murder. End of story. Good night.
epluribusunum wrote: » Love2u, please correct me if I am wrong. You believe the following: 1) No organic entity deserves to die against its will. 2) But that Hitler would have deserved the death penalty because he was a special circumstance.
shleedance wrote: » If someone's crime was really, really heinous or are repeat offenders to the point of no return, then I would support the death penalty. I do believe that sometimes you have to literally remove the problem when reformation does not work. People will argue "but you're no better than them for doing it" and they would have a point. However, I believe it is the only way to stop someone reoffending. Like I said though, the situations to warrant the death penalty would have to be VERY exceptional, and at least try to have criminals reformed etc. first.
catallus wrote: » If by "Multiplying" you mean concurrent, then you might be edging closer to reality. There is no deterrent in the current sentencing regime so the argument that deterrence isn't provided by Capital Punishment is moot.
catallus wrote: » As for "Killing people is wrong"; not always true, but that's an entirely different argument.
epluribusunum wrote: » Nope. Be patient and I will wait until Princess answers. We are going on 48 hours now...
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Why are you waiting for me...? If you can explain how the point relates to my objecions, I'll consider it; but as such it's only relevant to those who oppose on moral grounds. If you wish to debate this with me, you tell me how you propose to deal with the objections I raise about the issue. If you wish to debate Hilter, and points that other people riase, then you do so with others. This is how debate works.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Why are you waiting for me...?
Love2u wrote: » These are your words to me yesterday - "Baby steps I suggest....you are not at the level of reading a sentence and doing another thing yet I guess" So what does that make you with your point number two!!?? Shall I suggest "baby steps" for you. So I will say it AGAIN for you - I'm against the death penalty, I don't care what the case is I'm against it 100%, end of story.
