(April 22, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: I wanna go Texas too, it looks crazy and fun. I'm sure it's not as bad as the media paints, especially in the cities where people would probably be more cosmopolitan.

It can be pretty damn bad, though. It's a big state, so it really depends where you go. The capital, Austin, is considered one of the most progressive cities in the country. Go up to the panhandle, however, and you better not be anything but a straight, white Christian if you don't want to get hassled.

I, too, have flipped on the death penalty. Not that I'm against killing people that kill, but because it's impossible to guarantee an innocent person won't get executed.

(April 22, 2016 at 4:30 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: I wanna go Texas too, it looks crazy and fun. I'm sure it's not as bad as the media paints, especially in the cities where people would probably be more cosmopolitan.

It can be pretty damn bad, though.  It's a big state, so it really depends where you go.  The capital, Austin, is considered one of the most progressive cities in the country.  Go up to the panhandle, however, and you better not be anything but a straight, white Christian if you don't want to get hassled.

I was thinking more Dallas, but I wouldn't rule out Austin

I'm lucky that I can pass though. I'm not as obvious in real life as I probably come across on here haha. Well, I can be, but I have an "off" switch, which everyone should have.

(April 22, 2016 at 4:32 pm)Faith No More Wrote: it's impossible to guarantee an innocent person won't get executed.

Y'see, I used to think this. It was my main reason for opposing the death penalty. 

But is it?

Anders Breivik? I'm for it in circumstances where we know without a shadow of a doubt the person is guilty. The problem is that in some cases we're more sure that the person is guilty than in others.

(April 22, 2016 at 4:59 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Anders Breivik? I'm for it in circumstances where we know without a shadow of a doubt the person is guilty. The problem is that in some cases we're more sure that the person is guilty than in others.

So you take a sample group of a whooping one and take it from there? Sure, there will always be the one out where there's no doubt, but that doesn't make the case now, does it? Truth is, quite a lot of people are found innocent after being sent to death row. Lot as in more than one or two. Condemned because they hadn't any defense deserving that word or simply because they belonged to a less privileged group. And on the other hand people probably being guilty get away, like OJ. Because they could afford the best team available.

I stand by what I always used to say, kill one of my loved ones and there's no guarantee what I might do. But we, as a society, shouldn't make fatal and irreversible decisions. We might be on the receiving end one day.

(April 22, 2016 at 5:07 pm)abaris Wrote: So you take a sample group of a whooping one and take it from there?

You are infuriatingly pigheaded. Obviously, I'm basing my entire stance on Anders fucking Breivik alone.

Oh wait, that's not what I said. I gave him as 1 example. My apologies, I should have increased my sample group and gave you more even though it's pretty fucking easy to get my point which you deliberately misinterpret. I should have qualified it with Anders Breivik for example. My fucking bad.

Quote:Sure, there will always be the one out where there's no doubt, but that doesn't make the case now, does it?

Where did I say it does? Hell I said the polar fucking opposite.

Me Wrote:The problem is that in some cases we're more sure that the person is guilty than in others.

(April 22, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Napoléon Wrote: You are infuriatingly pigheaded. Obviously, I'm basing my entire stance on Anders fucking Breivik alone.

No, I'm being realistic, since you and me probably not being loaded, might end up on the receiving end of what is called justice. Which is not the same for the rich and the poor, as you may have noticed. Just saying. And there will never be any justice system passing verdicts just in entirely clear cut cases.

(April 22, 2016 at 5:17 pm)abaris Wrote: No, I'm being realistic

I just got Déjà vu.

(April 22, 2016 at 5:19 pm)Napoléon Wrote: I just got Déjà vu.

As it's supposed to be. Btw, still waiting for your analysis of why the UK leaving might be better for the pub population and the UK no longer being bootlicking the US.

(April 22, 2016 at 4:59 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Y'see, I used to think this. It was my main reason for opposing the death penalty. 

But is it?

Anders Breivik? I'm for it in circumstances where we know without a shadow of a doubt the person is guilty. The problem is that in some cases we're more sure that the person is guilty than in others.

The problem comes in defining "without a shadow of a doubt" and having flawed human beings implement it. I'm sure every person that was sentenced to death was sentenced by a jury that believed he/she was guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, but that hasn't stopped innocent people from being sentenced to death. We're just not capable with our current systems of properly implementing a death penalty. There's always room for error and corruption.

Besides, I would rather a million Breiviks wallow in prison for the remainder of their lives than have one innocent person put to death.