Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum


Retired/Inactive Mod
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-3 Ill-mannered

About mormril

  • Rank
    Chess Dilettante
  • Birthday 07/26/1989

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender

About My Character

  • RuneScape Name
  • RuneScape Status
  • RuneScape Version
  • RuneScape God
  • Favourite Skill
  • Combat Type
  • Combat Level
  • Overall Skill Level
  • RuneScape Clan
  1. mormril

    Death Penalty

    You advocate the exact same punishment for the man who has murdered 1-2 people to the man who has murdered thousands. This one-size fits all punishment approach is inherently flawed in my views. The ultimate punishment is death. Not food, water, medical care until the day they die. God did some things that seem questionable to us today (mainly referring to some of the stories in the Old Testament). If these people want to be 'redeemed', then they have the opportunity to claim repentance prior to execution, provided that their heart has not been hardened by the willful violence that they have committed. With that being said, I had not heard of the Double Effect or the Just War Theory. I have not been exposed to very much Catholic teaching. But it seems to me that the Catholic church as an entity has found that violence is an acceptable form of force throughout the ages. And?
  2. mormril

    2012 Being End of the World

    I personally think that the world is going to be coming to an end at the end of 2012. I find the kind of movies that detail this apocalyptic event to be somewhat boring sadly.
  3. mormril

    2012 Election Thread

    Clint Eastwood is freaking hilarious. People are acting like he is off his rocker/insane. There were quite a few hilarious points in there. Especially liked the comment against that fool Biden. Give the dude a break, he is 82 years old. Anybody else see this? Video of Clint Eastwood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiHNVYRTKP8
  4. mormril

    2012 Election Thread

    Well, it is really kind of early, so it is hard to tell. I really hope not though. It would be painful for me to see Obama's smiling face on the newspaper for another four years. Kansas is not really a swing state at all, though. lol
  5. People will demand more fuel-efficient cars anyway, so the regulations are unnecessary. These regulations will put a burden on the auto industry to meet these standards. *eyes glaze over* This. Also, I'm assuming that's highway. lol
  6. mormril

    Death Penalty

    Obviously the death penalty commands a certain amount of fear, otherwise why would people do plea bargains for life in prison to avoid the death (otherwise known as a reason for why the death penalty is viewed more negatively than life in prison, i.e. more severe of a punishment). And you want the death penalty to be removed because you consider it to be another form of racism. An emotional appeal if I ever heard one. I I have already agreed that the death penalty provides a problem with the excessive cost and that that the initial act of crime is based mostly on the likelihood of being caught, not severity of the punishment. These are not arguments against the death penalty. The first is only an argument against the inefficiency of how the process is being done. Life in prison vs the death penalty both are a form of punishment. As Common Sense aptly described, our law system tries to match the punishment to the crime. Being an extremist is an argument in itself. I'm willing to look at this issue and consider the facts and even see some merit in both sides of the debate. I freely admitted that I do not consider the death penalty provides a deterrence to crime, even though you could argue that this weakens my debating position. You are completely biased. You have not considered the validity of the argument that the death penalty should be reserved for extreme cases where there is no reasonable doubt, and that horrific things have been done. There are several reasons that can be provided: 1) victim's death is trivialized. 2) rehabilitation is not possible. 3) taxpayers should not have to pay for lifetime in prison. With consideration given to our current appeals process, I think that this could be handled far more efficiently. And could even prove cheaper.
  7. mormril

    Death Penalty

    That is a matter of opinion. The death penalty is not the best option in MOST cases, but I completely reject the argument that the death penalty should be banned. Any kind of viewpoint that ignores that there are exceptions to the rule is susceptible to being wrong. Do I think Hannibal Lecter should be killed? Yes. It has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. For these people who have killed multiple people with witnesses along with confessions, why are we bothering screwing around with an appeal process. It is the twisting of justice, wasting money and time to save people who lack a conscience for their deeds. Secondly, I find this concept that man has evolved to be completely conceited (nothing against you, mind). It just bugs me that we somehow think that we are any better than we were in the past. It is just silly. People just lack the opportunities that they had in the past. If we had gladiator fights in the United States, I think you would be surprised at the number of people who would watch this. It would probably be even more popular than MMA. But I digress... My point lies in the fact that while we are living in this temporal world, we should not reject violence. Violence has played a role in shaping civilizations and societies. It has a point. And sometimes bloodshed is a good thing.
  8. mormril

    Death Penalty

    I took a microeconomics class 4 years ago : An economist did a study evaluating parking tickets in a public university. More specifically, he was trying to determine what drove people to risk tickets. He determined, after studying these things, that it was not the severity of the punishment (i.e. the dollar fine) that deterred the crime. It was the likelihood of getting caught. I'm assuming the same can be said of the death penalty. So, I will just state up front that I think the death penalty provides no deterrence to crime. With that being said, I do not think that this is a valid reason to ban the death penalty. The problems with the death penalty costing more due to housing the inmates in special locations and other issues are due to flaws with the system. In California, it can take up to 20 years to execute somebody (or more). This provides ample reason to revise the law. A bullet only costs a few pennies. These stringent requirements for death row cases should be considered seriously to find a more cost effective way to kill somebody. So, to list the 'excessive' price of the death penalty is an argument against the death penalty, yes, but also an argument against the way that things are done. These things need to be fixed. You have not demonstrated how the death penalty is a sin in the eyes of God. God's own authority when the Israelites were around did involve the death penalty' date=' and I'm sure that punishment was relatively cheap. You referenced Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ's admonitions were to us living as humans. Why are we sheltering people who have killed other human beings? Your sense of justice seems skewed when your compassion lies with the murderers. My problem lies in the fact that you are making the assumption that life in prison is better than the death penalty because you seem to think that God backs this viewpoint. I am very skeptical. @404, I never said that the death penalty lowered crime rates (see above). This is irrelevant to me. It should be cheaper, however, to execute people. This only means that the justice system is flawed. It is also impossible to find completely accurate costs for the death penalty compared to life in prison without parole. I find that your explanation for number 4 to be superficial and weak. Feel free to expound on that if you have more details, otherwise I can only assume that you are responding to a different person's comments.
  9. mormril

    Death Penalty

    You don't seem to understand how a debate works. Let me break it down for you a little bit. A topic is presented and then people debate the topic. Presenting a link and saying 'that is my argument' seems like a cop out. When you add in the petty rude comments, and misinterpreting what people say (after browsing through 8 pages), I'm still waiting to have a genuine debate with you. Where is your argument? Where in the entire thread have you actually presented a breakdown of your reasons for why the death penalty should be abolished. I mainly see you tearing down people's arguments who are in favor of the death penalty, which is, of course, always the easy way out. I guess I should just go have a debate with wikipedia. :P Or maybe I should just let Wikipedia debate the issue. A further point, you never really rejected my initial argument. I stated that for most people, it was an emotional reason. You have never stated (correct me if I'm wrong), that no, I disagree with the death penalty because of X, Y, and Z. I don't see this emotionally. I would never be so naive as to assume that I can read somebody's mind. Yet you have never stated this. Nor, for that matter, has anybody else on this entire thread, as far as I'm aware. There have been other reasons presented. ZJ_, and you called me ignorant. Well, here is this ignorant college senior. Now correct me, people. Tell me that no, your reasons are based in X, Y, and Z. I won't call you a liar. Furthermore, I find your explanation a bit weak for the 'wrong way that you came off.' You do not know if I read the wikipedia page or not. With this all of this being said, I'm just going to summarize this with stating that I'm not willing to have a debate with wikipedia. :lol: So, good evening, shu. And I don't think that I will be answering your comments anymore, unless they actually bring something to the debate. To attempt to make this a bit more on topic. I will reiterate what I have already stated. Our criminal justice system is based on equitable treatment. People who murder innocent people deserve some form of justice. We've already agreed on that. How do you propose to prove that the life sentence is more of a punishment than the death penalty? If you have sympathy for those convicted of death row, this seems like a contradiction. (6) edit: Very succinctly put. That's all I wanted to hear. I'll think about this.
  10. mormril

    Death Penalty

    Lilshu, I'm still waiting for an argument. I'm not wasting my time. edit:
  11. mormril

    Death Penalty

    This is what I always find amusing about the debate room. So far, Lilshu, I have not heard one argument from you opposing the death penalty. I have heard that I should wiki the subject. I have heard that you are deeply offended that I would arrogantly state that people are emotionally opposed to the death penalty. What argument have you actually made against the death penalty? SImply saying 'why', 'well, I don't agree with that. Why?!', etc gets really old quickly. I have to respect Phoenix Rider because he actually backs his beliefs with arguments. All you do is boiled down to the question why. It is a silly little childhood game that you can never beat. Yuanrang argues by using some kind of extreme form of hyperbole. Phoenix Rider seems to be the only one who actually considers what he is writing. If you have a point to argue, then say it. 1) Crimes and punishments are clearly detailed. 2) Death penalty is justice based on equitable treatment. 3) Appeals to stop the death penalty are based on emotion, not logic. 4) The death penalty removes a violent member of society permenantly. 5) It has not been clearly demonstrated that life in prison is more of a punishment than death. 6) Saying 'why' the death penalty compared to life in prison is not a fudgeing argument. 7) What punishment is there going to be for future offenses? A murderer with a life sentence has NOTHING to lose.
  12. mormril

    Guild Wars 2

    Does it seem to be working correctly? Also, it'd be interesting to get your guys feedback. Is this game really worthwhile? I'm considering purchasing it.
  13. mormril

    2012 Election Thread

    Very interesting points. I must admit that I might've been a bit haste in my decision. I will have to think about this.
  14. mormril

    Death Penalty

    See, here's what I don't like about the way you present your arguments. You grant that the Death Penalty is more expensive to run but to counter that, you are asking for the costs to be lowered by cutting standards just to have the death penalty. I find that language dangerous as it puts us in the position were we cut standards just to uphold a policy which has little/no evidence to support it's superiority. I ask for your patience mormril but I still don't understand from your explanation WHY it is a moral imperative to have the death penalty over the alternative. Why is it morally justified for society to continue to have it? What do we lose if we don't? You quoted the justice system in the Old Testament. Is that where you are basing your claims? Cause if that were the case, I would rebut by saying the justice system at the time were meant for their cultural and historical context and shouldn't be enforced to a modern society. This is the same way as Jewish Kosher laws no longer apply or the ban on interfaith marriage as they were used to isolate the Kingdom of Israel from neighbouring cultures yet such isolation is unneeded for the modern Church. The case where Jesus prevented the stoning of the adulterer despite it being part of the Jewish law shows the limitations of that system of justice and how many of the laws are not meant to be practised in the present day. @Yuan, I'm sorry if you feel discussing theology is somehow not constructive. I simply want to know why mormril holds his moral stance on the topic and if theology is one of the reasons for it, then I want to know. For believers, religion and the value judgements we get from it affect many views and beliefs we hold as individuals and I think it is unfair to ignore that aspect of a person. Our viewpoints are not as far removed as most of you are making out. I do not believe that the death penalty should be used in most situations. Most people convicted of these crimes should serve life in prison without parole, because I have sympathy for the viewpoint that mistakes are possible. Your problem lies in the fact that you are seeing this as one rule fits all. I don’t hold you in contempt for your views. I’m merely pointing out that your mercy seems misplaced. To pick a protagonist from a movie, take Hannibal Lecter. He is a killer, without mercy or repentance. He is going to be a danger and threat as long as he lives. You can put him in a cage, but you will never turn such a person. Do you think that you are going to hurt such a person by putting him in prison for life? Lowering the requirements would be a slippery slope. And in such a case, I think the extra money is worth the effort. If you are a Christian, then you understand that true justice comes after death (I do not believe in an eternity of hell). The reason that most people object to the death penalty lies in emotion, or even some kind of twisted logic where they fear that they will someday be in such a situation as described. After all, if you are put in prison for life, there is a chance that your mistake will be found out. Our laws are based on precedent. People have mocked my use of the word justice. Justice is actually a very aptly used word. One definition from Merriam Webster defines justice as ‘the quality of conforming to law’ or ‘the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Everybody has their own concept of fairness. But a common event that you know from your childhood, could be described as what is equitable. It could be described as a balance. Let’s say that there are clearly defined laws that define the punishment for murder. Tell me, how am I being arrogant to say that it is justice when a convicted man is put to death? How is this some 'ill-defined' vague concept of justice? So, enlighten me, educated people, is murder fine then? Those who go to the other extreme, arguing for a lifetime of ‘suffering’ I would argue are basing this on vengeance, not justice. I would agree with you, Phoenix Rider. Circumstances have changed, and the requirements that the Israelites had cannot be duplicated. With that being said, the precepts or logic that this was based on (I would argue) cannot be changed. All have fallen short of perfection, right? It is the purest form of exchange, but who is going to torture the man to death. The victim? What if the victim does not want to? Is the court going to appoint some man to torture a man until he dies? This would lead to fear and hatred. Jesus. Kthxbai.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.