Fifth Estate, Third Rail

[Aardvaarkman]

very simple answer a dead person cant kill again, you know like most murders do.

But that makes you another murderer who, according to your logic, should also be killed in retribution. We have laws, courts and judges to decide these matters - just because you feel that somebody has wronged you doesn't mean that you are allowed to kill them.

You haven't answered the question. If murdering people is wrong, how is murdering people who have murdered people right?

I'd also like to see your evidence that most murderers murder multiple times. Sounds like you've been watching too many films or TV shows to pay attention to reality.

 

[ecoho]

very simple answer a dead person cant kill again, you know like most murders do.

But that makes you another murderer who, according to your logic, should also be killed in retribution. We have laws, courts and judges to decide these matters - just because you feel that somebody has wronged you doesn't mean that you are allowed to kill them.

You haven't answered the question. If murdering people is wrong, how is murdering people who have murdered people right?

I'd also like to see your evidence that most murderers murder multiple times. Sounds like you've been watching too many films or TV shows to pay attention to reality.

im sorry but have you read the reports that come out of California prisons? most of those people who are given life imprisonment kill other inmates to prove they stand at the top of the pyramid, and no killing someone who tried to kill you does not make you a murderer it makes you a practitioner of self defense. (I am talking in the moment not 3 days later while they sleep that would be murder, maybe justifiable and defendable but still murder)

Now in the case at hand the person would be given a trial and a judge would decide whether the person in question would be executed (which in the case of traitors and serial killers is the usual punishment if said punishment is on the table)

 

[Farther than stars]

--snip--

Except that this is an inconsistent definition of tradition. The idea that a man could only marry one woman is quite a modern thing, a "progressive" change from the days when men had multiple wives, or the days when the King had the right to sexual intercourse with a bride-to-be.

Very true, but a conservative ideology doesn't take such a long view. Conservatives long for the old 1950s-1960s style values that they themselves 'grew up with'. So it's more about consistency over one's own lifetime (or at the most a generation before that), as opposed to keeping consistent with historical trends that are far removed from the person.

There is inconsistency throughout the spectrum of politics.

[...]

The very idea of an entirely consistent ideology without compromise is basically impossible in the modern world, and the labels of "conservative" and "progressive" are pretty much useless.

This is a different definition of consistency than the one we were talking about. When people talk about consistency as a basis for conservative ideology, they mean consistency in a sociocultural sense, not whether a specific party's views remain consistent with their parent ideology. Indeed, party politics is never exactly equal to the theory, as you correctly pointed out, but then neither is anything else in life (i.e. in mathematics there is such a thing as a straight line, but in physics there is not). Nonetheless, the philosophy of politics is still generally considered a useful tool through which to view party politics in terms of inter-party relations.

Many "conservatives" supposedly want government out of their lives, except when it comes to marriage, religion, the military and abortion.

Ha! You forgot about crime. Conservatives are never more interested in socialism than when it's about Clockwork Orange-style crime solutions.

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

BRÜHL
mit umlaut

with Ü.. or ue
Bruehl or brühl. If you dont have these Letters Ää,Öö,Üü then take Ae, Oe, Ue.

 

[SexyGarfield]

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

im sorry but have you read the reports that come out of California prisons? most of those people who are given life imprisonment kill other inmates to prove they stand at the top of the pyramid,

Do you have a citation for that? And how does "most of the people given life imprisonment in California" constitute the majority of people who have committed murder?

... and no killing someone who tried to kill you does not make you a murderer it makes you a practitioner of self defense. (I am talking in the moment not 3 days later while they sleep that would be murder, maybe justifiable and defendable but still murder)

But that's not what you said in your previous post. You didn't mention self-defense at all - you mentioned the "right" for a murderer to be killed. If it was self-defense, the murder never would have happened in the first place, would it? Your logic is extremely faulty.

Now in the case at hand the person would be given a trial and a judge would decide whether the person in question would be executed (which in the case of traitors and serial killers is the usual punishment if said punishment is on the table)

The "usual" punishment? A significant portion (maybe even a majority) of civilized countries don't even have the death penalty. It doesn't seem to be working out to well for those countries that do, because countries that have a death penalty also tend to have higher rates of violent crime, and the USA is #1 in incarcerating its own citizens.

 

[ecoho]

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

im sorry but have you never heard of classified information? even when that shit is leaked you don't admit you had spies or informants in another country that's how you cause an international incident and start you know wars.

Also the pentagon was a little busy trying to save their people when wikilinks offered to let them "help" with redacting the names, you know the ones that never should have been leaked in the first place.

 

[SexyGarfield]

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

im sorry but have you never heard of classified information? even when that shit is leaked you don't admit you had spies or informants in another country that's how you cause an international incident and start you know wars.

Also the pentagon was a little busy trying to save their people when wikilinks offered to let them "help" with redacting the names, you know the ones that never should have been leaked in the first place.

I'm sorry I don't take conjecture as evidence, I doubt many reasonable people do. Like I said if there were any proof of loss of life caused by Chelsea Manning's leaks then it would've been presented at her trial. Regarding the pentagon and their being too busy, if it was really a threat to the lives of Americans or American assets helping redact what they see as necessary to redact would be saving lives. The refusal was just a matter if wounded pride.

Without watchdogs such as wikileaks, those with power in gov go unchecked and things like double tap [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html] would go unnoticed. I for one don't want my tax dollars used to kill first responders to bombings of unknown origin (to those on the ground[or even the Americans who are financing the strike]). The gov has lied to us so many times in the recent decade or so that without these unbelievably brave organizations and individuals they would continue, not even giving thought to consequence.

 

[Urameshi13]

You've done it again, Bob. You've managed to sell me on a movie that I was dubious about. Before your review of the A-Team movie three years ago, I wouldn't have touched it because I wrongly wrote it off as another cash-grab for Hollywood to trample upon my 80s nostalgia. Sounds like this flick just made it to my rental list (no time in my life for going to the cineplex at the moment).

 

[inidu]

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Your statement is inconsistent with the truth.

 

[ecoho]

You know I remember a time when if someone leaked classified documents they were called a traitor and shot for treason, you know like the law states(actually scratch that it says traitors may be hung)

Otherwise known as a disgusting period in history. The idea that we would kill people for any crime is disgusting.

oh hahahahahahaha........ oh shit your serious?

im sorry but that's just naïve, if someone tries to kill someone that someone should have the right to try and kill them back. That man literally put out death warrants for the people mentioned in those documents. you want to blow the whistle? ok do it hell do it publicly so you cant be silenced but don't compromise lives so that you can feel a little better about yourself and don't run.

Show me one person that died as a direct result of the information that Manning gave wikileaks.

several assets were executed or just simply fell off the planet after their names were made public.

Bold-faced lie. I asked you to name just one death that was a direct result of the documents she leaked. If the US military can't at Manning's trial then you can't either.

Also if that was really the problem the gov had with the leaks then why didn't the pentagon help redact the documents when wikileaks offered to let them do so?

im sorry but have you never heard of classified information? even when that shit is leaked you don't admit you had spies or informants in another country that's how you cause an international incident and start you know wars.

Also the pentagon was a little busy trying to save their people when wikilinks offered to let them "help" with redacting the names, you know the ones that never should have been leaked in the first place.

I'm sorry I don't take conjecture as evidence, I doubt many reasonable people do. Like I said if there were any proof of loss of life caused by Chelsea Manning's leaks then it would've been presented at her trial. Regarding the pentagon and their being too busy, if it was really a threat to the lives of Americans or American assets helping redact what they see as necessary to redact would be saving lives. The refusal was just a matter if wounded pride.

Without watchdogs such as wikileaks, those with power in gov go unchecked and things like double tap [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html] would go unnoticed. I for one don't want my tax dollars used to kill first responders to bombings of unknown origin (to those on the ground[or even the Americans who are financing the strike]). The gov has lied to us so many times in the recent decade or so that without these unbelievably brave organizations and individuals they would continue, not even giving thought to consequence.

your from he Netherlands how are your tax dollars being used? Now like I said I have no problem with watchdog groups and whistle blowers I just think that if they put peoples lives at risk then they crossed the line.

They didn't show proof of loss of life for the reasons I stated before and as to why they didn't help redact what they see as necessary to redact is because as we all know(or should after being on the internet at all) is once somethings on the net its there forever and as such time was better spent getting assets out of harms way.

Now I believe your heart is in the right place and as such I ask that after you answer my first question(im honestly curious about that statement) we agree to disagree and move on.

 

[SexyGarfield]

your from he Netherlands how are your tax dollars being used? Now like I said I have no problem with watchdog groups and whistle blowers I just think that if they put peoples lives at risk then they crossed the line.

They didn't show proof of loss of life for the reasons I stated before and as to why they didn't help redact what they see as necessary to redact is because as we all know(or should after being on the internet at all) is once somethings on the net its there forever and as such time was better spent getting assets out of harms way.

Now I believe your heart is in the right place and as such I ask that after you answer my first question(im honestly curious about that statement) we agree to disagree and move on.

I am a citizen and resident of the United States. I regularly use a VPN service and when I registered this account the connection was likely with a Netherlands server. A end to this sounds like a good idea, there seems to be little chance of ideological resolution between us and we have each spoken our piece.

 

[ecoho]

your from he Netherlands how are your tax dollars being used? Now like I said I have no problem with watchdog groups and whistle blowers I just think that if they put peoples lives at risk then they crossed the line.

They didn't show proof of loss of life for the reasons I stated before and as to why they didn't help redact what they see as necessary to redact is because as we all know(or should after being on the internet at all) is once somethings on the net its there forever and as such time was better spent getting assets out of harms way.

Now I believe your heart is in the right place and as such I ask that after you answer my first question(im honestly curious about that statement) we agree to disagree and move on.

I am a citizen and resident of the United States. I regularly use a VPN service and when I registered this account the connection was likely with a Netherlands server. A end to this sounds like a good idea, there seems to be little chance of ideological resolution between us and we have each spoken our piece.

ok good to know lol. Always nice to have a debate with someone reasonable take care.