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

[Shell B]

And Epi uses "it" ( a slur for a person he doesn't like) to justify a system of violence meant to exterminate all of the "it"s who he believes to be less than human as well...so? Don't facepalm me, lol.

If I had a dick, I would stamp you in the forehead, at this point. His justification doesn't appear to be the "it" thing. In fact, part of his justification leads to the "it" thing.

"But they really are shitbag serial killers" says the "it"ist

Provable by means of simply talking to the person in question.

"But they really are shitbag (insert ethnic slur)" says the racist.

Easily disproved by means of speaking to a group of the people in question. It may be proved by talking to all of them as well, though unlikely.

My point is that you can easily categorize the behavior of a serial killer as inhuman, by the actual definition of the word, not the literal sense I often go by. Therefore, it only follows that they be treated as they behave. Do you smile and wave at people who push you in line?

Fact is, a serial killer is a human being. Cut and dry. They don't lose this classification when they commit a crime, and if killing people is wrong, it isn't made right by deciding to call them "it".

Duh. It still doesn't mean that he is in any way politically incorrect by calling them its. A human is a human. That's a given. What we call them has naught to do with it. He is expressing his distaste for them and separating himself from them. Natural, normal and okay.

(and again, because I can never say this enough, those people we deem to be "it"s...sometimes just happen to be innocent, just happen to be people after all.

This is what happens when a thread veers from topic. The two issues are not combined on that level. Epi was not referring to accused serial killers as its or even convicted ones, specifically. He was referring to serial killers as its, which is a sight different.

I know that both you and Epi feel the same way, the two of you have more confidence in our ability to be certain, even if only in theory. That's the difference in opinion.)

I don't have confidence in our ability to be certain all the time. I have told you this. I think that in rare circumstances where the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, exceptions could be made.

---

Justifying the death penalty because they are inhuman trash, using dehumanizing language to make putting them to death palatable?

Now, that is a touch too far. I agree that the level of our distaste for them should have nothing to do with using the death penalty. However, using the term "it" in an of itself is not a problem for me.

Wanting to get at the "serial killers" and damn the innocent men we may sentence to death, because our justice system is so perfect or we artificially limit "who" gets the death penalty (disregarding the invariable circumstance when someone is charged and railroaded anyways)?

Is that what he suggested? Did he actually say, "I agree with the death penalty as it stands now. Collateral damage is not an issue for me." It is possible to agree with the death penalty and not want to kill innocent people, you know.

Wanting to keep a death penalty under cause of "they might escape"?

There is a very real threat of them escaping. Downplaying that and upplaying (for lack of a better term, as I find the execution of innocent men just as distasteful as you. I simply use the term to show the imbalance between the two potentials for innocent death being applied here) is kind of strange. "Oh, they might get out." said in sarcasm shows an ignorance of how many of them actually escape and kill more people or stay in jail and kill more people. There is a real threat and, yes, people can be threats. They can be other adjectives used to describe objects as well.

If face palming was an option here, there would be no more faces to be palmed.

I agree. I am relatively certain that each and every person here has said something illogical based on their own emotions. However, I will facepalm when Rhythm shows his "typing before thinking" side.

---

Christ, I always miss your addendums.

I draw the line at people. I probably do that because it's in my own best interests. I am dismissive of other species because they are not people (they're different than me, very much so). Is this position consistent overall when applied against serial killers, who are also different than me? No. Let's not pretend that Epi's (or anyone else who holds this opinion) is any different. At least I'm falling back on species as a difference. Serial killers as "it"s has a little tougher of an argument to make. So I'm being PC about human bveings, and? Are you calling me a pussy again?

No, not calling you a pussy. I simply disagree with your terms. Serial killers are, presumably, very different from you and I. Again, it is natural and acceptable to distance yourself from that. Why is it okay for someone to say something like, "Those sick fucks." "Demented assholes.", etc., but not okay to refer to them as it. Fucks are only human pronouns in slang. A corpse is an it. Groups of people are its. Such as "The crowd moved across the room. It did so quickly." (Gosh, that is robotic.) At any rate, you get my point. I am positive that, given some time, I can find a thread where you are not so PC about humans. It's inconsistent. That's all.

You can't "dehumanize" them, but you can call them cunts, dicks, fucks, douches, asshats, fucktards, idiots, assholes, dumbasses, stupid asses, crazy, stupid, dumb, illogical, insane, fairy tale lovers, gullible, pricks, cocks, pussies, etc.? A douche is an object. An ass is an animal. A cunt, a dick, an asshole . . . all body parts, not people, but you can call people that without tall guys in the forest shrieking and covering their ears.