dude_brahmski's forum posts

Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]This argument is hilarious. I'm fairly certain 6 Shooter doesn't believe a word he types and is just after rustling jimmies, as his sig implies.6_Shooter_25

He's definitely a troll with zero wit. I have a feeling that GD is serious tho.

And yet you are the one who has resorted to personal attacks and stopped paying attention to what I have to say. I linked to a source and you assumed it was a joke. The reality is that unprotected anal sex is proof that homosexuality is a deviant, immoral act that doesn't help anyone.

4.5/10 Needs more jesus
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
In '07, I would say yeah, Al Gore doesn't deserve it, but, honestly, who still gives a sh!t about that award? In 2013, I think I'll just laugh at OP. Addendum: the above isn't meant to imply that anthropogenic global warming isn't a thing.
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="6_Shooter_25"]

Source.

There you go. The anus and rectum is susceptible to cuts and tears.

6_Shooter_25

that actually doesn't answer his question

It actually does. It proves that homosexual acts are for deviants and those who don't care about the propagation of their species. 

Ergo, homosexual acts are immoral.

What a coherent argument.
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]Nope. I regularly indulge in tobacco, caffeine, and nicotine, but I'll go weeks at a time without any of them (months with nicotine).Rich3232
Do you smoke nicotine free tobacco or something?

LOL no On a few months, off, etc.
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
Ah, carpet bombing. God damn.
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
Nope. IIRC, there were initially plans to leave something of a reserve force, but negotiations b/w the U.S. and Iraqi gov'ts failed.
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
Good.
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
Nope. I regularly indulge in tobacco, caffeine, and nicotine, but I'll go weeks at a time without any of them (months with nicotine).
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] I'm not advocating the victim's families being judge and jury, only executioner. Legitimate revenge would apply to only the worst criminals, like the guy in the article, and there would have to be a high standard of evidence in order for that action to be taken. If some victim's father killed someone he thought was the killer, before the trial, that would still be murder whether or not he was actually guilty.Rhazakna

so, in states that do the capital punishment thing, aside from switching the role of executioner from the state administering lethal cocktails to some guy with a baseball bat, making the family feel better or something like that, how does this change anything?

The death penalty is very expensive so it would massively reduce costs. People against the death penalty wouldn't be forced to pay for an institution they find unacceptable. A bureaucracy subsidizing executions inherently means that the standard of evidence doesn't have to be very high. Giving an individual the legal ability to kill someone else would require a far higher standard of evidence, so innocent people being executed would largely be a thing of the past. Lastly, it would stop the arbitrary suppression of a natural human urge. "Justice" is just an emotional salve that most of society accepts. I'm just trying to clear away the mental phantasms that prop up the so-called "justice system".

The expenses of the death penalty are exorbitantly high in large due to the legal process more than anything else. While state-administered executions are certainly expensive, I'm not sure that I would describe your solution as 'massively reducing' costs considering the bulk of which remains unaddressed. In practice, the state permitting an execution by the family after providing a trial is a de facto execution. Additionally, state executions could certainly be cheap if desired. Really, the only thing I see here is your last point, which is definitely an idea. Not sure one that I agree with.
Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Based on what?

Emotional conditions of a victim's family affecting decision-making as judge, jury and executioner, for starters. Lack of access to resources to effectively narrow down those responsible (some will have both the patience and resources ($$$), but most won't, and be more prone to blaming the wrong guy). Finally, a complete lack of consideration for things like whether or not said actions weren't outright premeditated murder, such as self-defense and involuntary manslaughter. Then there's retaliatory escalation.

I'm not advocating the victim's families being judge and jury, only executioner. Legitimate revenge would apply to only the worst criminals, like the guy in the article, and there would have to be a high standard of evidence in order for that action to be taken. If some victim's father killed someone he thought was the killer, before the trial, that would still be murder whether or not he was actually guilty.

so, in states that do the capital punishment thing, aside from switching the role of executioner from the state administering lethal cocktails to some guy with a baseball bat, making the family feel better or something like that, how does this change anything?