The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[reverendjeremiah]

The point is that I do not see it as dehumanizing. Calling a person "it" is not necessarily dehumanizing. The fact of the matter is, you would have to actually consider a person not a human to dehumanize them. You have to take away their human traits or ignore their human traits. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

it
1     [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun
pronoun
1.
(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.
2.
(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.
3.
(used to represent a group understood or previously mentioned): The judge told the jury it must decide two issues.
4.
(used to represent a concept or abstract idea understood or previously stated): It all started with Adam and Eve. He has been taught to believe it all his life.
5.
(used to represent an action or activity understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned): Since you don't like it, you don't have to go skiing.
===
Fine. You are absolutely correct in saying that calling them "it" is not dehumanizing. In the very strict sense of the definition you are correct.
So then, I ask that those who call murderers "it" to clarify the reason WHY they call them "it" in the first place. What is your intention of calling murderers and rapists "it" in the first place.

If you want me to understand, and NOT misunderstand you..then please clarify why Rapists and murderers are "its". I am an open minded person. Here is your chance to correct and change my point of view.

No, they didn't. Just because you spout propaganda to make someone hate another race doesn't mean you actually believe it. Furthermore, even if every Nazi believed the lies, it was the lie that dehumanized them, not the truth. Serial killers are murderers. Therein lies the difference, rev.

well, not really. That isnt propaganda that I was trying to spout. I was merely trying to give examples. If you considered it propaganda, then I apologize, that was not my intention

Do you need to defend yourself psychologically from everyone who opposes you?

Sometimes I do, sometimes I dont. Remember, we are talking about allowing the state to kill people for killing people. The concept alone is seemingly self contradictory. The concept is also fraught with emotional baggage. So yes, I would say psychology would be a factor played on ALL sides of this specific debate...as it should. If it wasnt, then I would suggest that the topic was being held back.

Honestly, and I say this sincerely, without malice, you do seem to go off rather easily.

I am a man of great passion. It has its good points and bad points, depending on what side you look at it from.

The path you are taking with your "logic" can lead all over the place. The same argument could be used for "Oh, do I get to stab ONLY serial killers in my home or anyone I don't want there?"

I consider that a legitimate question that would be relative to this discussion, albeit a bit stressed. If I killed everyone I didnt want there, that would make me a serial killer also, wouldnt it? My MO would be "kills everyone in his home who he doesnt want there". It would also be questioned "did he invite them in and then kill them?" or "was he killing intruders?". If I personally killed a serial killer (otherwise known on this thread as "it") wouldnt I be doing society a favor and therefore considered a hero?
I am open to all questions.

"Do I get to block my face from being punched ONLY from a serial killer or anyone who is trying to punch me?"

umm...

No..LOL. This is more of a self defense question and not about the death penalty in my opinion.

It's a strange idea that you should now be PC about your self preservation methods.

I dont consider state sanctioned executions to be "self preservation methods" nor do I consider them PC.

If you can do it to one, you can do it to all? I mean, really. I dislike serial killers. I don't dislike everyone who opposes me as a result.

Im glad to hear that

I dislike serial killers as well. I just think that instead of chopping the problems head off, we should instead FIX the problem.

Yes, because I'm not the word police, as long as you spell it right.

That should have ended with a smiley face

Yes, because I'm not the word police, as long as you spell it right.

there..that looks much better.

They are the same thing, really. One simply connotes sex.

So then if we were talking about Jefferey Dahmers, and Epi called him "it", then you would post something to the tune of "no epi..Jefferey is a "him", not an "it".
Intent is very important in my questioning of calling serial killers and rapists as "it".

What is YOUR intent in using "it"? What is Epi's intent in using "it"?

Bah. Slippery slope. Epi is not going to commit genocide because he doesn't hold hands with serial killers.

Yes, I agree. Calling Humans "it" on purpose when you are aware of their sex opens a new can of worms and is indeed a slippery slope. Next we will be calling them "demons".
I hear you, and I am just acting silly because I disagree with you thinking my original statement was a slippery slope.
I am also aware that you did not mean that I hold hands with serial killers either. you were merely making a statement of fact.

Another slippery slope.

I agree. When you know the sex of the rapist, and still insist on calling him and "it" is very much a slippery slope that can lead to even more slippery slopes.
I hear you, and I am just acting silly because I disagree with you thinking my original statement was a slippery slope.