Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: cap'n queasy wrote:
Well, I would be pretty doubtful of the sanity of any person who would enjoy watching any of those methods of execution purely as entertainment.

quote:
I think the family of the victim's gets to watch, or at least used to, the exucution of the convicted. They are often satisfied, and some would say even entertained by the vindication, yet we do not think them insane.

They aren't watching it for entertainment purposes.

But since we are on the subject, you know what would make an entertaining "reality show"?

I would like to see you and Revenant put in a room with this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein

So you can explain to him your plan to entertain wonderbread suburbia with the deaths of prisoners in gladitorial contests. I have a feeling he probably won't like the idea of being a circus for pudgy college kids who would like to watch ultimate fighting for real, all that much.

Now that would be entertaining, and instructive. :lol:

[Revenant]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: cap'n queasy wrote:
Well, I would be pretty doubtful of the sanity of any person who would enjoy watching any of those methods of execution purely as entertainment.

quote:
I think the family of the victim's gets to watch, or at least used to, the exucution of the convicted. They are often satisfied, and some would say even entertained by the vindication, yet we do not think them insane.

They aren't watching it for entertainment purposes.

But since we are on the subject, you know what would make an entertaining "reality show"?

I would like to see you and Revenant put in a room with this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein

So you can explain to him your plan to entertain wonderbread suburbia with the deaths of prisoners in gladitorial contests. I have a feeling he probably won't like the idea of being a circus for pudgy college kids who would like to watch ultimate fighting for real, all that much.

Now that would be entertaining, and instructive. :lol:

If I committed rape or homicide, the time spent with Thomas Silverstein would be well deserved.

The punishment is just, and benefits everyone except the guilty.

[cap'n queasy]

I think the time spent would be well deserved and socially redeeming simply to see some idiot get the just results of running their mouth too much.

[Revenant]

cap'n queasy wrote: I think the time spent would be well deserved and socially redeeming simply to see some idiot get the just results of running their mouth too much.

Surely you don't mean me :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

The fact that you have chosen a group that you believe is universally reviled to focus upon does nothing to change the fact that you have chosen to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to subject human beings to degradation and death for entertainment purposes.

I believe you would likely to be just as entertained if innocent children were forced to fight to the death and would also advocate this if you thought those around you would accept it, although you would almost certainly deny it. The choice of convicts, a group that many hate, is merely to obscure the reality that only reprobate mind would even consider such a thing as gladiatorial contests.

You don't want to see convicts die, you want to see people die. The purported choice of convicts is merely a convenience.

You guys have serious issues.

[slitedeviance]

cap'n queasy wrote: You don't want to see convicts die, you want to see people die. The purported choice of convicts is merely a convenience.

Unusually I completely agree with the good cap'n here.

There is not one portion of the original idea that has been thought through from the perspective of Justice or Societal Benefits. All the posts in favour seem to be along the lines of "Wouldn't it be cool if they have chainsaws and shotguns!!!!!!!!!!!!" rather than any sort of actual consideration of the effect this sort of policy would have on the justice system.

Is the next step to force rapists to take part in Porn movies? Dangerous drivers get to "run the gauntlet" down a road full of other drunk drivers?

The whole principle of the justice system is based on the premise that the state upholds what is considered moral and fair. To act as the better party when compared with the criminal. If the state is willing to operate on a base level of indecency for PROFIT how can it be argued that it is capable of understanding justice and fairness?

As mentioned before, if the justice system is linked to profits, who earns what? Does the judge earn an incentive for referring the criminal to the tournaments? How would you stop corruption? How would the system survive if an innocent person was subjected to this brutality?

Sometimes I'm very very glad I live in good old moderate land....

[Revenant]

cap'n queasy wrote: The fact that you have chosen a group that you believe is universally reviled to focus upon does nothing to change the fact that you have chosen to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to subject human beings to degradation and death for entertainment purposes.

I believe you would likely to be just as entertained if innocent children were forced to fight to the death and would also advocate this if you thought those around you would accept it, although you would almost certainly deny it. The choice of convicts, a group that many hate, is merely to obscure the reality that only reprobate mind would even consider such a thing as gladiatorial contests.

You don't want to see convicts die, you want to see people die. The purported choice of convicts is merely a convenience.

You guys have serious issues.

Wow....assumptions and character assassination. Fantastic.

My motive would be to use their deaths to better society by means of bringing in money that can be used for the common good.

[The Grandmaster]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: cap'n queasy wrote:
Well, I would be pretty doubtful of the sanity of any person who would enjoy watching any of those methods of execution purely as entertainment.

quote:
I think the family of the victim's gets to watch, or at least used to, the exucution of the convicted. They are often satisfied, and some would say even entertained by the vindication, yet we do not think them insane.

They aren't watching it for entertainment purposes.

You are not in a position to know whether or not they are being entertained by it at all. They may very well be.


cap'n queasy wrote: But since we are on the subject, you know what would make an entertaining "reality show"?

I would like to see you and Revenant put in a room with this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein

So you can explain to him your plan to entertain wonderbread suburbia with the deaths of prisoners in gladitorial contests. I have a feeling he probably won't like the idea of being a circus for pudgy college kids who would like to watch ultimate fighting for real, all that much.

This is clearly a man who loves violence, and loves to fight. Your post is clearly only hurting your argument, as he would almost certainly jump at the chance for something like this. He is in prison, in solitary confinement under glaring lights every hour of every day. He would almost certainly love to get the chance to do something as exiting as fight at this point. If he won, it was fun for him, who as already killed many times. If he lost, it ends his suffering.

cap'n queasy wrote: Now that would be entertaining, and instructive. :lol:

Why? Do you think he would hurt me and Renevant? So now you are saying watching a killer hurt and possibly kill me and Renevant would be entertainment to you. But a few posts ago, you just got finished saying you doubted the sanity of any man who watches things like this for entertainment. So by your own admission, you are both a hypocrite, and insane. You've messed your whole argument up. Bravo.

cap'n queasy wrote: I think the time spent would be well deserved and socially redeeming simply to see some idiot get the just results of running their mouth too much.

So you did not condone violent combat with the rapists and the murders, but now you want to see someone merely expressing their opinion in open debate potentially beaten to death by a raging maniac, you are saying that running one's mouth, simply expression an opinion is a worse crime raping a women or murdering someone...Wow....

It isn't me who is looking like the insane man on this thread Cap'n.

cap'n queasy wrote: The fact that you have chosen a group that you believe is universally reviled to focus upon does nothing to change the fact that you have chosen to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to subject human beings to degradation and death for entertainment purposes.

You just did the same thing, hypocrite. Why do you get special pleading?

cap'n queasy wrote: I believe you would likely to be just as entertained if innocent children were forced to fight to the death and would also advocate this if you thought those around you would accept it, although you would almost certainly deny it. The choice of convicts, a group that many hate, is merely to obscure the reality that only reprobate mind would even consider such a thing as gladiatorial contests. You don't want to see convicts die, you want to see people die. The purported choice of convicts is merely a convenience.

Strawman and Fallacy of Omniscience. Two argument errors in one passage. Clearly, punishment for criminals being equated to children fighting to death is only done in an attempt to misrepresent Renevant’s position in order to attack claims he has not made, a tool of the desperate in argument. Furthermore, you are claiming knowledge you cannot have, namely, that he would enjoy children killing each other simply by virtue of being entertained by convicts duking it out.

You are clearly just frustrated and no longer making a serious argument.

cap'n queasy wrote: You guys have serious issues.

And remember who wanted to see us locked up with a murderer who would potentially beat us to death a few moments ago, and claimed it would be entertaining. So if Renevant and I go to the psychiatrist because we have “issues”, you will be traveling along with us Cap’n. 8:)

[cap'n queasy]

Let's try an experiment.

Write him and describe your idea and see what he thinks of it.

Here's his address:
Thomas Silverstein, 14634-116 SAC-1, Post Office Box 1000, Leavenworth, Kansas, 66048.

[Revenant]

cap'n queasy wrote: Let's try an experiment.

Write him and describe your idea and see what he thinks of it.

Here's his address:
Thomas Silverstein, 14634-116 SAC-1, Post Office Box 1000, Leavenworth, Kansas, 66048.

So, you completely avoid every point made in the last two posts but one? ...fantastic?

What one random guy in prison thinks about the system is irrelevant to the major topic at hand. Red Herring.

[The Grandmaster]

cap'n queasy wrote: Let's try an experiment.

Write him and describe your idea and see what he thinks of it.

Here's his address:
Thomas Silverstein, 14634-116 SAC-1, Post Office Box 1000, Leavenworth, Kansas, 66048.

What has that got to do with anything! That has nothing to do with the argument! :lol:

Besides, can the dude even get mail!?

And Renevant was right, you just gave up on the rest of the posts.

[Revenant]

Zybthranger314 wrote: I voted no soley because I am in favor of getting rid of the death penalty. But if we're going to keep it around, why not? If the criminal wants to do it, let them.

The weight class idea sounds good, so that it's more sporting, but I think there should also be a seperate class for those who don't want to be assigned a weight class, and they can fight each other.

As for weapons, I think there should be two categories, and the criminal decides which to be in, along with deciding whether to be weight classed or not. The categories being bare fists and basic melee weapons.

Holy crap you're alive.

:lol:

[Zybthranger314]

Revenant wrote:
Holy crap you're alive.

:lol:

That I am. I need more things to distract me from writing a paper on classification and recall of memories and the viability of their reproduction in Artificial Intelligence.

@ cap'n queasy:
Just wondering how you got the mailing address.


I'm not entirely sure what I think Mr Silverstein might think. He may be against the idea soley because he is planning on escaping and killing more people than he would probably kill in combat. But then again, the chances of him killing again outside of the combat are so low, he'd probaly agree to it.

@ The Grandmaster and Revenant

Maybe cap'n queasy is busy and he didn't have time for a comprehensive response, and so he just posted the additional information he found instead as that's all he had time for. But you are right in that if that is his response, it is not good at all.

[PricklySponge]

I dont see any reason why not.

Why stop it at one vs one battles? We could have 10 vs 10 battles, the crips and bloods would all team up against each other, so it would be easy to organize.



I would gladly pay to watch.
8:)

[PricklySponge]

Korimyr wrote:

It commercializes our criminal justice system, causing economic incentives to find more accused criminals guilty and sentence them to death-- and thus corrupts our criminal justice system and erodes our civil liberties.

You can see this already in the use of asset forfeiture laws in our War on Drugs-- which was originally sponsored by the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals industries to protect their own market shares.

If the criminals had the ability to chose to engage in gladiatorial combat, your point would be moot.

[Korimyr the Rat]

PricklySponge wrote: If the criminals had the ability to chose to engage in gladiatorial combat, your point would be moot.

Not so. More people "given" the choice equals more people who say "yes"; the problem persists.