Warbird Information Exchange

I agree with most of what you say, but that last sentence is breathtakingly disingenuous.

August

Just sharing my amazement that people can be so viciously cruel. I'd never hurt a animal, but if push came to shove I'd really wouldn't have issues shooting someone like this

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Everything I just typed disappeared, so I'll just ask you to which definition of disangenuous you mean.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" David Cannadine.
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.


1. I am being quite candid, I simply think neither they nor we deserve to put up wit hthem alive, when their entire being is wrapped around the idea of inflicting pain on others for the joy of it. If they had a sense of morals, guilt or shame, they wouldn't want to live with what they do, and woiuld probably want to die. Either way, I think it's a mercy for all of us when we put a psychopath to sleep. Opinion, yes. Disangenuous, no.
2. UNaware of what? That most serial killers, child rapists, and truly severely mentaly disabled people who commit heinous crimes who are NOT put in solitary end of murdered, gang raped, and live horrible lives in general population? Better off dead, I'd say (Yes, I completely understand what dead means) Opinion? Yes. Disngenuous? No.
3. Naive? Me?hur hur hur. I doubt it. Brutaly realistic is more like it.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Death penalty has a place from time to time, but in a limited way. I think that in cases where DNA evidence is availble that the death sentence should be a possibility. I also think that in this day and age, anyone who is in prison and has DNA evidence available in their case, should have the benefit of having that evidence tested regardless of cost or how long ago the DNA evidence has been held in the evidence lockup.

I also think that prisons should be very different than they currently are, hard labor could be a meaningful mechanism to deter repeat offenders.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Door #1. If a person is better off dead, he will let you know. If he doesn't, it is insincere and hypocritical to decide that being dead is best for him, especially when you don't give a **** about him and are just rationalizing a killing that you think is better for the rest of us.

August

As I said, I think if they were able to grow a sense of morals, they wouldn't want to live after doing the things they have done. Since they can't, their needs and wants cease to matter in the larger context of societies needs. And our needs are rather obvious. We can lock them up in a solitary cell for the remainder of their days, where they can't hurt anyone, or we can put them down. I think it is a cheaper, kinder to the victims and their families, and safer thing to put them down.

Mind, I am not talking about your average knucklehead who does too much crank and shoots a couple of people in a holdup. But a serial killer or mass murderer is a different sort of bear, and needs to be treated as such.

That I can't read their thoughts doesn't mean I need to wait for someone like Ted Bundy to tell me anything. In the state he is in, anything he tells me will simply be another attempt to manipulate me and cause me pain. He's not capable of anything else. You'll remember he tried to lead the authorities a merry chase by doling out his crime scenese one at a time, right?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

I think you have corrected your disingenuousness/hypocrisy by backing off from "it's a mercy to them" to "their needs and wants cease to matter."

August

Eh heh. I stood by my comment, you'll notice. As long as they're insane, they don't get a vote. And if they somehow became sane, I find it highly unlikely that they would somehow WANT to live with what they have done. It's sort of axiomatic. Sanity would imply a horror at past acts of rape, murder, cannibalism, etc. So I think either way it would be merciful. (Mercy doesn't necessarily mean that they deserve a choice in the matter)

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

What part of "Though shall not kill" do Christians who are for the death penalty not understand?

Genesis 9:6 Whoever shed the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

Read also:
Romans 13
Leviticus 20:9
John 19:11

What part of "Thou Shalt not Murder" does the vast majority of those who claim to be Christian do they not understand?

Sorry, but this is getting to be a sticking point of mine. The original texts say "Murder". Some point during its thousands and thousands of translations, it was changed to "Kill", but as much older transcripts have been found, it has become clearer and clearer that either by error of translation or intentional changing, the original Ten Commandments as most know them are not correct and no one has really tried to fix that error. There is a distinct difference between the two words but yet in Hebrew and Aramaic, are very simliar in their writing and are only a difference in root. By correcting the translation, it clarifies the "apparent" contradiction between the writings in all of the other books of the bible which refer to corporal punishment.

References:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/ ... urder.html
http://www.deathreference.com/Sy-Vi/Tho ... -Kill.html

So much for an inerrant Bible...

What's not to say that the Bible is not inerrant? The translation of the original is what's in error.

Please don't turn this into a religious debate. We really don't need that on this site again. If you don't like the Bible well that is your right but frankly I really don't care to hear your opinions on the matter.

Two points; I just saw an Easter program about what is known as fact about Jesus( not so much) and what is in effect educated guesses. It pointed out that at he time of his life little or none was written about him, that recorded accounts came 30 or 40 years later. Also we have people on WIX and in the general public who say they don't want to talk about religion or to hear anyone else's view. Yet Jesus was the opposite, he went out in public and preached his view or faith and listened to questions from others.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK