um, hello, based dept.?
Advertisement
by Remaris » Sat May 23, 2020 11:10 am
Nap the Magnificent wrote:Not putting stock into memes is to not put stock into real life.
by LiberNovusAmericae » Sat May 23, 2020 11:12 am
Novus America wrote:Cekoviu wrote:Well, see, the issue is that the death penalty in general means that innocent people will end up dying at some point and I'm not too thrilled with that.
There are ways to address that, for example make the death penalty require a higher stand of proof, such as reserving it for cases where there is no real doubt or dispute of guilt, no the more borderline cases. Also for repeat offenders and those who commit crimes while in prison.
Such safeguards can reduce the risk of a false conviction.
by Questarian New Yorkshire » Sat May 23, 2020 11:12 am
by Munkcestrian RepubIic » Sat May 23, 2020 11:13 am
by The New California Republic » Sat May 23, 2020 11:14 am
Nap the Magnificent wrote:Not putting stock into memes is to not put stock into real life.
by Salus Maior » Sat May 23, 2020 11:18 am
by Celritannia » Sat May 23, 2020 11:18 am
Diopolis wrote:Celritannia wrote:
But they do exist.
Reject them all you want, but trying to stop them from happening is stupid.
Egalitarian relationships are a modern contrivance which likes to call itself that. But taking the polyandrous example of the whatever the term is(orgy? agglomeration?) in the news article about polyamorous child abuse, that's not described as an egalitarian relationship. The woman is the hub, and the men are the spokes. So that sounds more like matriarchy than egalitarianism.
In the real world all relationships are inherently hierarchical. Saying "well when we have egalitarian relationships we won't need social norms for relationship exclusivity"(the actual content of pro-poly args) is like saying "when the state gradually withers away into a classless currencyless society, everybody will be perfectly provided for".
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Questarian New Yorkshire » Sat May 23, 2020 11:20 am
Cekoviu wrote:>cigarettes
uh oh, found the degenerate
by Salus Maior » Sat May 23, 2020 11:21 am
by Questarian New Yorkshire » Sat May 23, 2020 11:22 am
by Remaris » Sat May 23, 2020 11:25 am
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Novus America wrote:
There are ways to address that, for example make the death penalty require a higher stand of proof, such as reserving it for cases where there is no real doubt or dispute of guilt, no the more borderline cases. Also for repeat offenders and those who commit crimes while in prison.
Such safeguards can reduce the risk of a false conviction.
Yes. People who murder in prison need to pay that penalty.
by Questarian New Yorkshire » Sat May 23, 2020 11:28 am
by The New California Republic » Sat May 23, 2020 11:28 am
Remaris wrote:I'm against the death penalty partially on the grounds of the risk of false convictions, a risk which can be somewhat mitigated but never entirely eliminated
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Almighty Bureaucracy, BlazingAngel, Cyptopir, Eahland, El Lazaro, Google [Bot], Narland, San Lumen, Shrillland, Southland, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, Stratonesia, Victorious Decepticons, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement