Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (1,346)
-
@Joxman2k Then we will lock them up or kill them in order to isolate them from others so they can not hurt others or kill them , and to deter others from criminal activity. Retributionism is beside the point.
-
@Joxman2k "to label a person as a killer deserving of death by is just practicing vengence."
Are you really that stupid? What did you eat today? So first you need to consider what is killed. If you wash something with bleach you kill at least 1 thousand bacteria. So what? Someone being a killer does not entail the death penalty. The problem is, when someone imposes their will on someone else and kills them intentionally without a good enough reason.
-
@Joxman2k There is no such thing as sin. No, because it’s not intentional. It’s not the same to accidentally run someone over and to intentionally run someone over. One is murder the other is not. If you can't see the difference then you are just an idiot. If too many innocent people were thrown into jail to justify the benefit then the justice system would not be useful.
-
...cont.
It's one thing to stop the act of killing as it is happening, but to label a person as a killer and therefore deserving of death by your hand and to believe it is justified, is just practicing vengence.
Vengence is not justice, it is just increasing the need for forgiveness.
:)
:P
-
Aren't we all sinners, hence, not innocent? I thought Mary was the only immaculate birth.
I'm Atheist BTW.
I'm not certain where you get "The principle is not to kill an innocent person." Technically if you are a Texan and your state executes an innocent person then by your definition, you are a killer, so that means I can kill any Texan and it will be ok, because I stopped you from killing another innocent person.
It's circular logic that you present.
-
@Joxman2k No its not. Because you have the initial killer. He breaks the principle not to kill. The principle is not to kill an innocent person. There is no principle that says not to kill someone who is trying to shoot someone else. You don't get it at all.
-
I am not confused. I understand your view but you must agree that "to kill someone for killing someone" is a contradiction of values at its core.
:)
:P
-
@Enthusiasmable ACTUALLY YOU ARE IN NEED OF SERIOUS HELP! BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT! BUT HOW COULD YOU NOT? YOU ARE A MURDERER AND A COLD BLOODED MURDERER AND A COWARD, YOU PROMOTE MURDERERING INNOCENT BABIES! SUCKING THE BRAINS OUT OF AN INNOCENT BABY WHILE IT'S STILL ALIVE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVIENANCE!! RIPPING BABIES APART LIMB FROM LIMB IN LATE TERM MURDERS O I MEANT ABORTIONS! HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THE MOVIE SILENT SCREAMS! REMEMBER SICK PEOPLE LIKE YOU SAID THE INDIANS WERE NOT PEOPLE!
-
@xavierz71 You either are in need of some serious mental help or are on a quest for attention. Either way you have proved to everyone here you can not be taken seriously. Have a nice life.
-
@xavierz71 "EVIL"? Before the 4th week of pregnancy, it is a fetus, not alive so there is no death if there is no life in the first place. EVEN YOUR BIBLE SAYS SO
"The blood is the life, fetus has bloodstream at 4 weeks" Deut 12:23
If christians are that considerate, they wouldn't have sex, get drunk, eat swine, etc cuz they're all sins, and dont bullshit me with all the "confessing your sins" thing. WHY SIN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Doctors are doing their jobs, saving the alive, not the soon-to-be
He was arrested and charged AND convicted for distributing these posters and is not allowed near the clinics where these doctors work. Yea!!! We won a small victory and are working to win even more.
moviemakersize 7 months ago 11
They should be busting the people who put out posters like these and charge them with manslaughter or inciting violence. The fact is, Charles Manson, never committed a murder, just convinced others to do it for him, what is the difference, here?
angelic6465 10 months ago 6