Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Super Citizen Test/ License to kill discussion

Super Citizen Test/ License to kill discussion
Thread Tools
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 12:37 AM
 
K. I'm quoting myself here:

you misunderstood completely. I dont want cops doing that. I want average citizens (who are GOOD PEOPLE) to become vigilantes and eliminate criminal threats. Mafia people? Dead. evil drug dealers? Dead. Rapists? Dead. Murderers? Dead. Child Molestors? dead.

If common citizens would just put their foot down and have the balls to bust a few rounds into street scum I don't think we'd have as big of a problem, however, our laws prevent that from happening. Perhaps if they had some super citizen test, or perhaps if it was just legal to kill bad people.

- Ca$h


What is so wrong with this idea? Bad people dead. And allows an average citizen to take care of problems themselves. Yeah, it'd be hard to regulate, but you wouldnt NEED regulation if only good people could achieve this license to kill. Perhaps instead of a license to kill, we'd just be more leniant on murder. Ex: I kill some bad guy in broad daylight, go to court, they find out he's bad, I get let off.

Something like that. But why is this idea so wrong/bad?


- Ca$h
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 12:58 AM
 
Define "Bad".
There's your problem.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 01:05 AM
 
we need more bounty hunters. your idea isn't that bad, Ca$h, despite what everyone says. good citizens could have licenses to kill people that were wanted for SERIOUS crimes. America would be a whole lot safer.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT-
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 01:08 AM
 
well the fact that if "nuts" like you (I only say this with relation to your general postings, dont know you personally - and your reputation precedes you) would "get off" on stuff like this... going around killing people all "willy nilly"... putting a trigger happy public in charge is scary... anybody who got viewed as the bad guy would get shot, an chaos would rule.

(who are GOOD PEOPLE)...
Most often both sides view themselves as the "good guys" and to each the "other is the bad guy"... this type of adversary voilence will just perpetuate more violence.

the link below in my "sig" originates from SynEarth.net and sounds like a good idea in IMO...
|
|
V
------------------------------------
E PLURIBUS UNIX


[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]

Š FERRO 2001-2002
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Dakota, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 01:17 AM
 
Read the book Crime and Punishment. It discusses the idea of supermen vs. common men.

Supermen are people who do not believe any law, moral or otherwise, actually applies to them, and are only interested in what action is necessary to reach their next goal. Napoleon is an example of this: he killed many many people with no conscience (at least, that's what's the warped thinking of the main character Raskolnikov thinks) . Supermen are often glorified after their death for their brash ways (if their plans and actions are successful) .

Common men stay inside the law. If they try to go outside it, they'll either get caught or be unable to handle it.

There's a 400+ page book in two paragraphs
I do suggest reading it, though, I liked the book a lot.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 01:27 AM
 
In a few states you can legally kill some bad people. Self Defence, Justifiable homicide, etc. Hell, isn't Texas where you can use deadly force to defend your property? I seem to recall an incident where a repo man was shot in the back with a hunting rifle while trying to repo a truck a few years back. Was that fella ever charged? Anyway...
In some states you can use deadly force in the defense of another person. I think most though require that there is no doubt you fear for your life or the life of another individual.
There you go. Go to states that have broad self defense laws and no provocation laws. Drive around high crime areas picking fights with drug dealers until you feel that your life is in danger.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 02:02 AM
 
Hell there is an even better solution. Ca$h, if you truly desire the level of anarchy you have repeatedly proposed on this forum, why don’t you just resign from the human race altogether? I suggest you join a band of primates in Africa. There you could live under the purest form of survival of the fittest. (no insult to primates intended)
climber
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: East Texas (omg)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 02:27 AM
 
Originally posted by pooka:
<STRONG>Hell, isn't Texas where you can use deadly force to defend your property?</STRONG>
Damn straight. I'd hate to live in a pus*y state where i couldn't attack someone who's breaking into my house.

I mean, really.

I keep a baseball bat by my bed... If someone came in my bedroom window one night, bat + skull = problem solved.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a Jackalope space, I'm the Jackalope guy...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 03:10 AM
 
Baseball bats are fine and all, but I keep a Mossberg 590 12-guage next to my bed at night.

The problem is Ca$h, that "bad people" is a term that is relative when it comes to government sanctioning. Back in the 30's and 40's in Germany, Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Homosexuals, Freemasons, and many others, were all "bad people", and would have fit that above description you gave. Under your idea, it would be perfectly acceptable to plug them in that society (I know, but not necessarily ours).

The major problem is that NO ONE has the right to INITIATE force on someone else. None.

Now...if someone was to attack YOU, then by all means, defend one's self. After all, it is the absolute right of every man, woman, and reasonable child to arm themselves with whatever weapon they find appropriate to defend themselves with. Government and certain people who don't feel that it should be human nature to take their own defense seriously try to infringe on the rights of others so they cannot have the proper tools to do what comes naturaly for every life form on earth.

Any other argument just enables rapists, thieves, child molesters, and genocidal governments. Just ask the aforementioned groups from Germany. And Cambodians. And Ugandans. And Russians. And many other groups.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 05:47 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>What is so wrong with this idea? Bad people dead.
</STRONG>
I HATE people who drive Neons. They have such gay headlights.


I consider people who drive Neon's bad because of this. I also consider people who don't turn off their highbeams on a tight road bad. I would love a license to kill these people.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>And allows an average citizen to take care of problems themselves. Yeah, it'd be hard to regulate, but you wouldnt NEED regulation if only good people could achieve this license to kill. Perhaps instead of a license to kill, we'd just be more leniant on murder. Ex: I kill some bad guy in broad daylight, go to court, they find out he's bad, I get let off.
</STRONG>
I kill people who drive Neons, go to court they find out he drove a Neon and let me off the hook...

Man that sounds sweet!

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Something like that. But why is this idea so wrong/bad?

- Ca$h</STRONG>
I think I just answered that for you.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 06:40 AM
 
The way this guy is constantly promoting freestyle murder is sickening and if the moderators here had any sense they'd ban him for life.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: l'ignorante ]
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 09:23 AM
 
Originally posted by The Jackalope:
<STRONG> The major problem is that NO ONE has the right to INITIATE force on someone else. None. </STRONG>
Actually the concept of a state monopoly on use of force is a pretty good one.

No on has the right to initiate force on someone else, unless they are representatives of a state-controlled police force and have the legal backing to do so.


Ca$h - "Innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell? Basically, all I need to do is spread the word that you've raped and killed a few children in your neighbourhood. By your proposition, you'd be dead as soon as *anybody* decided you were a bad person. Regardless of whether the accusations were true or not.

Are you going to keep spawning new threads to discuss the exact same idiotic idea over and over again? Makes sense, really - eventually, people will just get fed up and stop shooting your inanity down. You might actually get the impression of having won, then, even though you've already *LONG* lost on almost all fronts.

over,

-s*
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 11:24 AM
 
I can't believe you are still trying to defend this retarded idea, you watched the Boon Dock Saints and now you have a romantic view of vigilantism and you call us lemmings. Pffft.

ps
I am sure whatever test they came up with you would fail miserably.
And let me remind everyone that Cash's idea isn't about defending your family or property it is about being able to shoot anyone who is perceived as "bad". His example was somebody says they were raped by Mr.X and he thinks he should be able to shoot Mr.X based on the accusation.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a Jackalope space, I'm the Jackalope guy...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 11:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

Actually the concept of a state monopoly on use of force is a pretty good one.

No on has the right to initiate force on someone else, unless they are representatives of a state-controlled police force and have the legal backing to do so.

-s*</STRONG>

Like the SS did with Jews, Gypsies, etc in Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge against, well, EVERYONE in Cambodia, and the ATF & FBI against the Branch Dividian church in Texas? They all had state sanctioning to do so, after all.

How is this a good idea? Please study some history. I recomend reading about state-sanctioned force against unarmed populaces at www.jpfo.org
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: East Texas (omg)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 01:38 PM
 
Originally posted by The Jackalope:
<STRONG>


How is this a good idea? Please study some history.</STRONG>
An unarmed populous is mass murdered. Armed people die one by one.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 01:48 PM
 
Originally posted by chris_h:
<STRONG>

An unarmed populous is mass murdered. Armed people die one by one.</STRONG>
and if you can convince one half of the armed populace to kill the other half, you save the state the cost of bullets.

That's one flaw among many of cash's plan: his assumption that the "bad" people would just idly by and allow themselves to be shot at will.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Placerville, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 02:03 PM
 
I'm with l'ignorante on this one. cashie isn't just a simplistic fool, he's way, way out of line, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too often. His topics, discussions and rants are disgusting and vulgar. He should go. Permanetly. Period.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 02:09 PM
 
This whole argument reminds me of the Bob & Doug McKenzie thing on SCTV (or maybe it was a clip from Strange Brew...I can't remember). Don't kill bugs just because you don't like them...cause sooner or later someone won't like you.....

If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 02:10 PM
 
Originally posted by usedmac:
<STRONG>we need more bounty hunters. your idea isn't that bad, Ca$h, despite what everyone says. good citizens could have licenses to kill people that were wanted for SERIOUS crimes. America would be a whole lot safer.</STRONG>
Yup. I know a guy that paid his way through college being a bounty hunter. When someone was arrested and failed to appear for their court date, a bondsman would offer a contract to his agents, the bounty hunters (technically called Bail Enforcement Agent/Bail Bondsman Runner), to re-arrest the defendant.

This guy was shot a few times trying to complete a contract, but he said it was worth the money. He got between 6-10% (depended on the alleged crime) of the defendant's bail money whenever he was successful. He said he never had to shoot anyone, but he almost always had his gun (it was locked-up at the police station while he was on campus).

He was doing three things for the community:[list=1][*]Getting a higher education.[*]Removing alleged criminals (aka "bad people") from the community.[*]Earning income, thus lowering the unemployment level.[/list=a]
[edit:clarification of terms]

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Bockie ]
09.11.01 - UNITED WE STAND
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a Jackalope space, I'm the Jackalope guy...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by chris_h:
<STRONG>

An unarmed populous is mass murdered. Armed people die one by one.</STRONG>
You got it half right. Unarmed individuals have a higher chance of being a victim of crime. Be it mugging, rape, beatings, murder, whatever. It's better to have the firearm and not need it than need a firearm and not have it.
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 06:10 PM
 
rapists. Drug dealers (the bad kind, not the stoner earthy kind). Thugs. Mafiosos. Gang members. people like that.

- Ca$h
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 06:17 PM
 
Originally posted by Metzen:
<STRONG>neon bashing

I think I just answered that for you.</STRONG>
See the problem with your stupid arguement is driving a neon doesn't HARM you, or anyone for that matter. I'm talking about BAD people. They get off waaaaayyyyy too easy. SO I rape and killa girl. I'll go to jail for like 5-10 years, then be back out on the streets.

pfft.

HOWEVER, by that same token if I were busted with more than a half an ounce of pot, I'd automatically be labled as a dealer and go to jail when in fact the only thing I'd be dangerous to is bags of cheetos.

HARMLESS people are in jail while DANGEROUS people are walking.

- Ca$h
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 06:31 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>

See the problem with your stupid arguement is driving a neon doesn't HARM you, or anyone for that matter. I'm talking about BAD people. They get off waaaaayyyyy too easy. SO I rape and killa girl. I'll go to jail for like 5-10 years, then be back out on the streets.

pfft.

HOWEVER, by that same token if I were busted with more than a half an ounce of pot, I'd automatically be labled as a dealer and go to jail when in fact the only thing I'd be dangerous to is bags of cheetos.

HARMLESS people are in jail while DANGEROUS people are walking.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
Give it up retard.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 06:34 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>...Drug dealers (the bad kind, not the stoner earthy kind).
- Ca$h</STRONG>
The "bad" kind HA HA HA you kill me. A dealer is a dealer.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: EU
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2002, 07:28 PM
 
Ca$h, what if we decide you're bad and that you should be killed?

According to your thoughts, you would have no problems with that, right?

But don't worry, I don't think you're bad at all. You're just crying for the attention you never got as a todler.

Have a dummy (or pacifier) and go back to sleep.
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2002, 03:09 AM
 
Do I rape anybody? Or murder anyone in cold blood? Or sell crack to single mothers? No. So why am I 'bad'?

Pain in the ass, sarcastic, and painfully truthful, sure I can be those things, but I'm not a BAD person.

I'm talking about EVIL people. You guys are all discussing this grey area. **** the grey area. I'm referring to badguys so bad that nobody can argue. Like dudes who beat the shit outta their women and whip their kids with belts. BLAM. Dead. And rapists. Child molestors.

Those types of people


- Ca$h
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: one of those norse worlds whose name I forgot...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2002, 04:11 AM
 
Ca$h, since you're amongst a group that is adamantly opposed to your opinions, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you. Your argument is highly idealistic, however that idealism is not supported with any shred of reality that begins to indicate that your idea could actually work. I think you really ought to think about, and answer, these questions: 1. How can you garuntee that this right will only be used against people who 'deserve' it? Vengeance is a strong human instinct, and more than likely the wronged would kill for vengeance, not justice. And if they kill for vengeance, not justice, they won't allways care that the person they target really is the guilty party: the victim would only care about getting 'them' back for what he or she thought they did. You said it yourself that this would be hell to enforce. Now tell us how it would be enforced. 2. How do you know when someone is 'bad'? You mention all sorts of people that I'm certain nobody relly likes to see around, however you forget that there is more to the criminal than the crime. There is the motivation. What makes a criminal dangerous is not the crime he commits but whatever drove him to commit the crime. In some cases, people are found to be dire threats to society and have to be eliminated. Others can be treated, others are misunderstood. A crime may still be a crime, but to seek vengeance for a wrongdoing without understanding its motivation is a sign of an unenlightened society. In short, a civilian populace with a liscence to kill has a disconcertingly large margin of error. And trust me when I say that if you ever wanted to convince even the people who would be protecting themselves in this way, you would have to answer this. Some may like the idea of being able to take down 'evil' persons, however those same people would just as soon have that right taken away if any good peson suffered because of it. Besides, if John was killed because his neighbor thought he was a murderer and he was not, are you any safer?
[CENSORED]

Newbies generally fulfil one of two functions: being a pain in the ass or fodder for the vets. If they survive to Senoir Membership, then their role undergoes a little change...

shanraghan: self-appointed French-speaking Chef de MacNN! Serving gourmet newbie-yaki to vets since the demise of the Drunken Circle Tool!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Umbrella Research Center
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2002, 04:13 AM
 
i have a better idea... lets give all the criminals a gun and make them promise to shoot themselves in the head...

gosh i guess i really did not contribute anything but sarcasm but hey everyone likes a smartass

phang
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Detroit Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2002, 04:56 AM
 
If I caught someone rapeing my sister then shot them in the face I would expect to be flown to salt lake city and given the the gold in heroism not sent to jail for 5-10 years for saving my sisters honor! this country is run by to many christian right leaders, not all life if any is sacred even yours
7-out party's over boys!
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2002, 05:39 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>See the problem with your stupid arguement is driving a neon doesn't HARM you, or anyone for that matter. I'm talking about BAD people. They get off waaaaayyyyy too easy. SO I rape and killa girl. I'll go to jail for like 5-10 years, then be back out on the streets.
</STRONG>
Heh. I wasn't arguing. Neon's are bad because they harm my sense of visual tastes. They are ugly, ugly cars and anyone caught driving one, is a bad person should be shot, either with common sense and better tastes or bullets. Apparently, neither seem to matter too much in this discussion.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>HOWEVER, by that same token if I were busted with more than a half an ounce of pot, I'd automatically be labled as a dealer and go to jail when in fact the only thing I'd be dangerous to is bags of cheetos.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
You forget the whole "pot induces people to want more pot, to people spending all their money on pot, to people who have no money and want pot thus kill people to get it."

Yes, a drug dealer would be a part of the problem, and subsequently, should be shot.

But, by that same token, people who drive Neon's piss me off, thus they should be shot, since they are a part of the problem. And yes, the world does revolve around me.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>HARMLESS people are in jail while DANGEROUS people are walking.
</STRONG>
Hahaha!!! That was grand. I especially like the emphasis placed on HARMLESS and DANGEROUS. Anyways, the majority of "rapists" and "murderer's" are in jail, with a few being looked for, and a few being tried.

If the streets were crawling with them, yeah, then that would probably be law. Unfortunately, for your argument, that isn't the case.

Welcome to reality.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Do I rape anybody? Or murder anyone in cold blood? Or sell crack to single mothers? No. So why am I 'bad'?
</STRONG>
I think your either being presumptious or painfully truthful to yourself here...

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Pain in the ass, sarcastic, and painfully truthful, sure I can be those things, but I'm not a BAD person.
</STRONG>
I wouldn't say painfully truthful. More like presumptious. Just like my feelings towards Neon's. If you want, you can consider that "painfully" truthful.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>I'm talking about EVIL people. You guys are all discussing this grey area. **** the grey area. I'm referring to badguys so bad that nobody can argue. Like dudes who beat the shit outta their women and whip their kids with belts. BLAM. Dead. And rapists. Child molestors.

Those types of people


- Ca$h
</STRONG>
Or those people who drive Neon's, BLAM. Dead.

And lastly, you cannot identify a "badguy so bad that nobody can argue" because, as I'm sure, they're in hiding. Good luck. Should one stumble into a crowded mall with America's Most Wanted ad's plastered all over the place, I'm sure the police will be right there to pick him up. But again, your negating your own logic here. Using yourself as an example:

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>What is so wrong with this idea? Bad people dead. And allows an average citizen to take care of problems themselves. Yeah, it'd be hard to regulate, but you wouldnt NEED regulation if only good people could achieve this license to kill. Perhaps instead of a license to kill, we'd just be more leniant on murder. Ex: I kill some bad guy in broad daylight, go to court, they find out he's bad, I get let off.
</STRONG>
Again, the MAJORITY of people out there are NOT criminals. Maybe petty, but definetely not hardcore criminals. If you went out and killed somebody, you've just given EVERYBODY else out there a licsence to kill you. If someone didn't recognize the person you'd have just shot, that person could shoot you because, as far as they know, YOU JUST KILLED AN INNOCENT CIVILIAN. And if you were a crook, you could just as easily claim not to be and that the person you'd have just killed was a "criminal", irregardless of whether or not he was.

Sorry dude, too many loop holes.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Metzen ]

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Metzen ]
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2002, 06:30 PM
 


I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about arguing something so stupid. What brand of car you drive, what kind of music you like, what shoes you wear, these are all PERSONAL TASTES and they don't make anyone BAD. They make them different or lemmings. So quit saying neon people should be shot because you're just sounding ****ing retarded.

But how would it be enforced? See thats teh thing. If you had GOOD people, they wouldn't NEED enforcement. Some people corrupt, others do not. So SOMEHOW, if they did not corrupt, good people COULD be given this privelidge. In the really real world, no, it wouldn't work. Why? Corrupt people, and stupid people like yourself who keep saying "Well who's bad!? Bad guys say good people are bad?! BLA!"

K. Timothy McVeigh. Or that asshole who tried to blow up a plane with his shoe.

BAD. Any arguments? No. Good. Dead.

- Ca$h
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2002, 07:16 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about arguing something so stupid. What brand of car you drive, what kind of music you like, what shoes you wear, these are all PERSONAL TASTES and they don't make anyone BAD. They make them different or lemmings. So quit saying neon people should be shot because you're just sounding ****ing retarded.

But how would it be enforced? See thats teh thing. If you had GOOD people, they wouldn't NEED enforcement. Some people corrupt, others do not. So SOMEHOW, if they did not corrupt, good people COULD be given this privelidge. In the really real world, no, it wouldn't work. Why? Corrupt people, and stupid people like yourself who keep saying "Well who's bad!? Bad guys say good people are bad?! BLA!"

K. Timothy McVeigh. Or that asshole who tried to blow up a plane with his shoe.

BAD. Any arguments? No. Good. Dead.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
You just don;t get it do you? Your whole concept is an oversimplification that could never be realized without a whole bunch of "GOOD" people being killed along with the "BAD" people. I guess I can't expect much from someone who has no powers of reasoning or logic. It baffles my mind that you can be so dense. This idea is still retarded no matter what you say. Give it up already and admit that it is stupid... what am I saying cash admitting he has had a stupid idea?

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: shmerek ]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Across the river from Trump Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2002, 01:31 AM
 
Originally posted by funkboy:
<STRONG>Read the book Crime and Punishment. It discusses the idea of supermen vs. common men.
</STRONG>
Ha, ha ha ha ha, Ca$h read!!! Dostoevsky no less!!!! Nah, if its not in the magazine section or sold at Trak Auto he won't pick it up.

I just don't see the point to keep talking about this. Legal issues aside there is no possible way it could be carried out since for every vigilante that was going out and killing those drug dealers and rapists there would be another to kill him for the crime of murder. Its just too cyclical since the only real qualifying matter for why the person should be killed is personal perception.


Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2002, 04:44 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about arguing something so stupid. What brand of car you drive, what kind of music you like, what shoes you wear, these are all PERSONAL TASTES and they don't make anyone BAD. They make them different or lemmings. So quit saying neon people should be shot because you're just sounding ****ing retarded.
</STRONG>
Umm... I don't know if you realize this... Geez, I'd really, really hate to break this to you... But what you define as "BAD" is a personal taste. Your *cough* definition *cough* of BAD has as much validity as mine, irregardless if the majority agrees or not. I think people who believe in "Super Citizen's" who have the right to shoot whomever they think are bad people in the hopes that they'll get off scot free if the person is found bad are ****ing retarded. *shrug* Whatever. Stupid people have the right to an opinion too. As this discussion clearly demonstrates.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>But how would it be enforced? See thats teh thing. If you had GOOD people, they wouldn't NEED enforcement. Some people corrupt, others do not. So SOMEHOW, if they did not corrupt, good people COULD be given this privelidge. In the really real world, no, it wouldn't work. Why? Corrupt people, and stupid people like yourself who keep saying "Well who's bad!? Bad guys say good people are bad?! BLA!"
</STRONG>
Haha! That's funny! Now, we're moving away from "BAD" people to corrupt people. I like that. Thing is, all "Ca$h" has done it substitute the word "BAD" for "corrupt". It's really quite amusing. He is still lacking a definition of "GOOD" people, let alone set a example for whom would be a GOOD person. I like this.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>K. Timothy McVeigh. Or that asshole who tried to blow up a plane with his shoe.

BAD. Any arguments? No. Good. Dead.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
See, there is your problem. What you call "BAD" everyone else calls "PSYCHO's". And the most, best thing about shooting "PSYCHO's" on air planes is that your more likely to kill yourself and EVERYONE else whilst doing it.

Great plan.

And before the Oklahoma City incident, did you even hear of Timothy McViegh? No? Then how could you have possibly have stopped him, hmmm? And that "asshole", did you have a name or picture of him BEFORE he attempted to do this? Or know of his motives? No? Well... Unless your telepathic, I think your whole scheme falls apart again. Bravo. Congradulations. This is the greatest argument in the world. I don't think I've ever seen any beaten so senseless with these little things called "Reality" and "Facts" before.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 07:01 PM
 
Hrm. Well, I'll give some more examples:

OJ. He killed two people and slipped through our justice system. Someone should go kill that mother****er.

Mafia people: same deal as OJ. Enough money to get outta situations, they should just be shot in the face.

Jean Bennet Ramsey Parents: K. They killed her. They should die.

Any person convicted of rape with hard evidence (semen, confessing, etc) , they should be killed.

How can you argue this????

- Ca$h
     
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 07:12 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Hrm. Well, I'll give some more examples:

OJ. He killed two people and slipped through our justice system. Someone should go kill that mother****er.

Mafia people: same deal as OJ. Enough money to get outta situations, they should just be shot in the face.

Jean Bennet Ramsey Parents: K. They killed her. They should die.

Any person convicted of rape with hard evidence (semen, confessing, etc) , they should be killed.

How can you argue this????

- Ca$h</STRONG>
Nobody has the right to take another persons life.
Lock them up forever if need be.
Simple.

     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 07:35 PM
 
Couple problems with that attitude:

1. Who pays for it? I dont want to pay for food, heat and HBO for some rapist. Are you offering to pay for em?

2. We don't have room. Across the country our jails are full, and we need more. Why? For putting people in the slammer for stupid crap like marijuana.

- Ca$h
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 10:47 PM
 
Cash,

If you want to make justice by shooting people, why don't you become a professional policeman?

Serious.

Or if you don't like the law, get a bunch of signatures from your neighbohrs and write to your senator. With some luck, at some point in the future, 50% of U.S. citizens will agree with you.

Or go to another country where you can agree with the law.

The Godfather

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: The Godfather ]
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2002, 10:48 PM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Hrm. Well, I'll give some more examples:

OJ. He killed two people and slipped through our justice system. Someone should go kill that mother****er.
</STRONG>
Well then, go do it. Nobodies stopping you... And I'm sure our justice system will see your point of view validly and agree with you...

Riiiiiiight.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Mafia people: same deal as OJ. Enough money to get outta situations, they should just be shot in the face.
</STRONG>
Again, no one's stopping you from doing anything like that. You have well-thoughtout... Errr... Opinions... But again, this is not arguable, because they are simply opinions.

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Jean Bennet Ramsey Parents: K. They killed her. They should die.
</STRONG>
So, you read the tabloid's too?! Evidence (or lack of) has proved contrary in this case.

Originally posted by onefinger68:5
<STRONG>Any person convicted of rape with hard evidence (semen, confessing, etc) , they should be killed.

How can you argue this????

- Ca$h</STRONG>
I'm not arguing that dude. What your (attempting) to argue here is more situated for a "Death Penalty" type argument. Perhaps your not listening. Shall we reveiw what this topic was about? Yes, lets...

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>What is so wrong with this idea? Bad people dead. And allows an average citizen to take care of problems themselves. Yeah, it'd be hard to regulate, but you wouldn't NEED regulation if only good people could achieve this license to kill. Perhaps instead of a license to kill, we'd just be more leniant on murder. Ex: I kill some bad guy in broad daylight, go to court, they find out he's bad, I get let off.

Something like that. But why is this idea so wrong/bad?

- Ca$h</STRONG>
Man, I LOVE reading that! Your so hypocritical!!! License to kill, but be more leniant on murder! But all Murderer's must die! HAHA!!! I love this.

Again-- Very well thoughtout...
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 04:49 AM
 
I dont think killing a little girl and killing a guy who kills little girls is hte same thing. Do you?

- Ca$h
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 05:02 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>I dont think killing a little girl and killing a guy who kills little girls is hte same thing. Do you?

- Ca$h</STRONG>
What does it matter? What did the little girl do and why do we (the vigilante citizen's) want to kill her? Should we kill her if she strangled her little brother? Should we kill the executioner that kills that little girl? Under your law, I guess it'd be ok, but since they are all murderers, we'd have to kill the executioner, then the cycle would repeat: executioner kills executioner and so on. But again, under your law the executioner(s) would be citizens.

I'm pretty impressed though, that you neglected to challenge any of my previous points.

Again, congrats.

I've never seen anyone beaten so senseless then attempt to evade the original core of the topic by bringing in strawmen.

[edit]All right, all right. I made a topic for the Death Penalty and who should die. Who do you think should be given the death penalty?

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: Metzen ]
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
     
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 05:33 AM
 
Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>Couple problems with that attitude:

1. Who pays for it? I dont want to pay for food, heat and HBO for some rapist. Are you offering to pay for em?

2. We don't have room. Across the country our jails are full, and we need more. Why? For putting people in the slammer for stupid crap like marijuana.

- Ca$h</STRONG>
Society should have to pay for it. There has to be common sense applied to penal systems across the world. Tax Evasion is obviously not in the same league as murder so why bang someone up for creative accounting. There are other measures that can be taken.
I agree with your second point, you don't have room. So do something about it. Change the sentencing laws.

Or you could always ask yourself why there are so many people in prison?


     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: East Texas (omg)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 07:25 AM
 
Originally posted by The Godfather:
<STRONG>Cash,

If you want to make justice by shooting people, why don't you become a professional policeman?

Serious.
</STRONG>
DEAR SWEET MERFICFUL JESUS.

That is the WORST idea I have EVER heard.

And Ca$h, you are one stubborn, hard headed son of a bitch. Keep it up, it's entertaining.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 10:53 AM
 
Originally posted by chris_h:
<STRONG>

DEAR SWEET MERFICFUL JESUS.

That is the WORST idea I have EVER heard.

And Ca$h, you are one stubborn, hard headed son of a bitch. Keep it up, it's entertaining.</STRONG>
ya. but in cases like this when its just a hopelessly stupid argument, its more like looking at pictures on stileproject or something, its like "eww, that is totally repulsive, whats the next one?"
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In support of our troops
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 02:26 PM
 
Alright here's my theory.

The average citizen is put through a firearms safety course for a certain type of firearm. (Handgun, semiauto; Handgun, revolver; Rifle, Shotgun). Then they'll be autorized to carry that type of weapon. It's been proven, if everyone carried a gun, crime drops to almost zero, 'cause the good people and the bad people both have them instead of just the bad people.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 02:31 PM
 
Originally posted by x user:
<STRONG>Alright here's my theory.

The average citizen is put through a firearms safety course for a certain type of firearm. (Handgun, semiauto; Handgun, revolver; Rifle, Shotgun). Then they'll be autorized to carry that type of weapon. It's been proven, if everyone carried a gun, crime drops to almost zero, 'cause the good people and the bad people both have them instead of just the bad people.</STRONG>
I don't buy that one, do you have specific research that verifies your statement? Besides cash is talking about normal people being able to shoot whoever they perceive as "bad" without repercussions
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 02:55 PM
 
You misunderstood.


Some guy who rapes and kills little girls= bad kind of murder

Some dude who kills the guy above= good kind of murder, and nothing should be done to punish him.

Dig?

- Ca$h

PS: I considered being a cop til I realized I'd enforce the wrong laws. I'd let people speed and billy club assholes who didnt use blinkers, dumbasses who talked on cellphones and didnt pay attention, and morons who drove SUVs would get any ticket I could give em.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 04:47 PM
 
The only people that share your views are gang members: carry their own protection and make their own justice.

Just give it up. Guns are not cool.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cumbria, England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2002, 06:25 PM
 
Problem is, in the first week of having my licence to kill I would have shot the entire government, the royal family, anyone seen hanging about a place of "worship", and anyone else that pissed me off.

I think it's better to have things in the hands of fully trained and governed professionals, or lunatics like me would use it as an excuse to go round killing people saying that they looked as if they were dealing drugs to 8 year olds.

"Can you say Gouranga?"
"Eat lead mofawk" (bang)
"Would you like to spare a second for Cancer research?"
"Sure" (bang, sparks up another ciggie)
"Can you spare me a fag mate?"
"No, I was gonna smoke em all" (bang)
"Any spare change for heroin and to feed my baby?"
"I'll give you both somethin to shoot up" (bang, bang)
"Dogma, it's your round, mines a pint"
(bang) "Funny, you don't seem to be drinking it"

Killing spree!
Hark, I hear a robin sig'ing in the trees!
Nae, there is no sog to be sug,
or am I wrog? Why can't I sig?
     
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2002, 03:44 AM
 
Hrm. Good point. Perhaps if I had a gun at all times I'd kill meter maids. I think I'd use a whole clip on one of those ****ers.

-Ca$h
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:37 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2