Angola Prison Rodeo, inhuman or not?

[Baron Max]

We were talking about capital punishment, not guns. You made that jump somewhere.

But it's the same thing, just different terms/arguments. You're against CP because of the possible loss of innocent life, right? Then if it's innocent lives that bother you, that cause you to be against CP, then you must also be against anything else that causes the loss of innocent life, right?

So, ....what say you now?

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

But it's the same thing, just different terms/arguments. You're against CP because of the possible loss of innocent life, right? Then if it's innocent lives that bother you, that cause you to be against CP, then you must also be against anything else that causes the loss of innocent life, right?

So, ....what say you now?

Baron Max

I already argued that there is a difference between CP that is intended to kill and a car that is not intended to kill.
CP is a deliberate policy to kill humans. To me it is insane to maintain a kill policy that potentially kills innocent people.

 

[Baron Max]

I already argued that there is a difference between CP that is intended to kill and a car that is not intended to kill.
CP is a deliberate policy to kill humans.

You don't get it, Enmos, both of those, and many more, kill innocent lives. I don't see that intention has anything to do with it. You obviously do, but I don't see how you can make that distinction without a helluva lot of twisting and turning of logic or reason.

To me it is insane to maintain a kill policy that potentially kills innocent people.

So how do you feel about maintaining cars on the road? Isn't that a policy that ultimately kills innocent people?

So how do you feel about alcohol being produced? Isn't that a policy that ultimately leads to drunk driving deaths?

See? You're going to try to argue that some of those "kill policies" are necessary, but CP isn't. Well, again, your argument does NOT hinge on number of innocent deaths. It hinges almost strictly on your bias against CP.

Loss of innocent lives = bad. But loss of innocent lives in cars = okay, because cars are necessary ...and the loss of lives is the cost of doing business in life. Don't sound like such a good argument, does it?

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

You don't get it, Enmos, both of those, and many more, kill innocent lives. I don't see that intention has anything to do with it. You obviously do, but I don't see how you can make that distinction without a helluva lot of twisting and turning of logic or reason.



So how do you feel about maintaining cars on the road? Isn't that a policy that ultimately kills innocent people?

So how do you feel about alcohol being produced? Isn't that a policy that ultimately leads to drunk driving deaths?

See? You're going to try to argue that some of those "kill policies" are necessary, but CP isn't. Well, again, your argument does NOT hinge on number of innocent deaths. It hinges almost strictly on your bias against CP.

Loss of innocent lives = bad. But loss of innocent lives in cars = okay, because cars are necessary ...and the loss of lives is the cost of doing business in life. Don't sound like such a good argument, does it?

Baron Max

Loss of innocent lives is never ok, but I guess we just disagree in the 'intent department'. I think intention is very important.

 

[Baron Max]

Loss of innocent lives is never ok, but I guess we just disagree in the 'intent department'. I think intention is very important.

Car manufacturers "intentionally" make cars that have the potential to kill people. If they made cars like Abrams tanks, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed. If they made cars that only go 25mph, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed.

Thus, the argument of "intent" is obviously alive and well. Yet you don't rant against cars or car manufacturers. Therefore, the loss of life is not your main concern ...you're just using it as a tool in your biased argument against CP.

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

Car manufacturers "intentionally" make cars that have the potential to kill people. If they made cars like Abrams tanks, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed. If they made cars that only go 25mph, then fewer or no innocent people would be killed.

Thus, the argument of "intent" is obviously alive and well. Yet you don't rant against cars or car manufacturers. Therefore, the loss of life is not your main concern ...you're just using it as a tool in your biased argument against CP.

Baron Max

Car manufacturers do a lot to make cars saver. It is, in fact, in their best interest to make cars as safe as they can. The same can hardly be said of CP, for it is intended to kill.

 

[Baron Max]

Car manufacturers do a lot to make cars saver. It is, in fact, in their best interest to make cars as safe as they can. The same can hardly be said of CP, for it is intended to kill.

Read my post again, do a little thinking "outside the box", if you still can't see it, or won't admit it, then fine.

Baron Max

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Angola? Prisoners suffering? But they were/are propped up by China/Russia. I thought the bad things were universally American? :shrug: