AND he held his breath as long as he could to avoid inhaling. Really it should be done in a whole room like you said, and at a random time so as to avoid that stressful “last moment” struggle.
Preferably we don’t execute people at all, no matter how heinous their crimes.
Preferably we don’t execute people at all, no matter how heinous their crimes.
I have never understood this philosophy. Human lives are worth so fucking little. Culling ones that are cancerous to society is the same as treating an infected wound. We are not so divine that we somehow must never be removed. Not killing certain people just results in more innocent people being killed.
Unless they kill someone in there too. Just kill them and be done with them. No need for us as a society to pump more resources into them. We need to be absolutely sure it was them, but I don’t understand this wild need to keep someone alive simply because they’re human.
When you treat cancer, some healthy cells die as a result of treatment. It’s unavoidable. You’re proposing you just let it spread because hey…you might kill innocent cells. You can’t see the forest for the trees here. The state having lethal means of punishment still allows us to put checks on the system to ensure this happens minimally. Individual human lives are worthless. Humans progression as a species overall might be worth something, however.
I’m sure you don’t mind people having abortions, right? Reconcile those thoughts. If you’re okay with abortions, you have to be okay with the state having access to lethal means of punishment. If you’re not okay with the state having lethal means of punishment, then you should logically also not be okay with abortions.
They’re somewhat separate subjects, but they also involve destroying a human life. My opinion on the matter is reconciled. I’m okay with women having the right to terminate a life inside of them, because it affects them for their entire life. Therefore, I’m also okay with the state punishing people who have ultimately had a negative life-changing effects on those around them, the same way a child might ruin the life of a woman who isn’t ready for a child.
Comparing execution and medical care is hilarious. They are two fundamentally different concepts. You can write your diatribe to try and sound smart all you like, the fact remains that having lethal forms of punishment has, and will continue to, result in deaths of innocent people in the name of ‘justice’.
In other words no. You hold hypocritical beliefs and you can’t consolidate them. You may want to look inwards and try and understand why you make an argument for one and not the other. Consistency in your beliefs is what makes them worth listening to.
Wtf is wrong with you. Your cells aren’t sentient, they’re not actively experiencing living, so a few as collateral to save a life from cancer is fine.
Living, sentient humans are not okay to treat as collateral. I mean, I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate being killed as “collateral for the greater good” or whatever.
Because they put a mask on him instead of filling the room with nitrogen.
Bunch of idiots.
AND he held his breath as long as he could to avoid inhaling. Really it should be done in a whole room like you said, and at a random time so as to avoid that stressful “last moment” struggle.
Preferably we don’t execute people at all, no matter how heinous their crimes.
I have never understood this philosophy. Human lives are worth so fucking little. Culling ones that are cancerous to society is the same as treating an infected wound. We are not so divine that we somehow must never be removed. Not killing certain people just results in more innocent people being killed.
Holy Holocaust, Batman!
Murderers, Rapists, etc you pearl-clutcher.
I think life imprisonment is a perfectly reasonable, if expensive, solution.
literally what does this even mean.
You can’t fathom how killing a serial killer would result in lives saved?
Keeping them in prison and/or psychiatric treatment would have the same effect.
Unless they kill someone in there too. Just kill them and be done with them. No need for us as a society to pump more resources into them. We need to be absolutely sure it was them, but I don’t understand this wild need to keep someone alive simply because they’re human.
You can’t fathom how giving the state access to lethal means of punishment won’t result in innocent people being killed?
When you treat cancer, some healthy cells die as a result of treatment. It’s unavoidable. You’re proposing you just let it spread because hey…you might kill innocent cells. You can’t see the forest for the trees here. The state having lethal means of punishment still allows us to put checks on the system to ensure this happens minimally. Individual human lives are worthless. Humans progression as a species overall might be worth something, however.
I’m sure you don’t mind people having abortions, right? Reconcile those thoughts. If you’re okay with abortions, you have to be okay with the state having access to lethal means of punishment. If you’re not okay with the state having lethal means of punishment, then you should logically also not be okay with abortions.
They’re somewhat separate subjects, but they also involve destroying a human life. My opinion on the matter is reconciled. I’m okay with women having the right to terminate a life inside of them, because it affects them for their entire life. Therefore, I’m also okay with the state punishing people who have ultimately had a negative life-changing effects on those around them, the same way a child might ruin the life of a woman who isn’t ready for a child.
My beliefs are consistent. Are yours?
Comparing execution and medical care is hilarious. They are two fundamentally different concepts. You can write your diatribe to try and sound smart all you like, the fact remains that having lethal forms of punishment has, and will continue to, result in deaths of innocent people in the name of ‘justice’.
In other words no. You hold hypocritical beliefs and you can’t consolidate them. You may want to look inwards and try and understand why you make an argument for one and not the other. Consistency in your beliefs is what makes them worth listening to.
Wtf is wrong with you. Your cells aren’t sentient, they’re not actively experiencing living, so a few as collateral to save a life from cancer is fine.
Living, sentient humans are not okay to treat as collateral. I mean, I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate being killed as “collateral for the greater good” or whatever.
Where did you get your morals from??
Not idiots, it was very much an informed decision.