|
Just curious, what is the original context? I mean, some of you apparently discussed this elsewhere, and if you have a big thread full of wonderful opinions then share it, please.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
I hate dogs because they are filthy. Most people seem to love it when they lick your face or whatever but I just want to take a bath in bleach afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Grandmother of Five posted:Just curious, what is the original context? I mean, some of you apparently discussed this elsewhere, and if you have a big thread full of wonderful opinions then share it, please. Nothing, I just asked for a link in a different thread because I was blind and couldn't find it. Said I had a doozy to post but I didn't realize people were waiting so anxiously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:No it isn't. What other people choose to do with their lives is their business, not yours, and whether you're affected by it or not is irrelevant. Once something affects you, it becomes your matter as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:No it isn't. What other people choose to do with their lives is their business, not yours, and whether you're affected by it or not is irrelevant. And what if a guy decide to just fire a gun randomly with his eyes closed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
walrusman posted:Knew it was the right thread for it. Nah, it's really not your business. You're just being an entitled rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:No it isn't. What other people choose to do with their lives is their business, not yours, and whether you're affected by it or not is irrelevant. If Hitler wanted to become a dictator and gas millions of my people, well, that was his business. Who are we to criticize him for it??
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
walrusman posted:Nothing, I just asked for a link in a different thread because I was blind and couldn't find it. Said I had a doozy to post but I didn't realize people were waiting so anxiously. Kids are just a really divisive topic, as I'm sure you know. Religion, politics, and whatever else can be provocative, but there is nothing that gets people riled up like whether to have kids and how to raise them properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Nah, it's really not your business. You're just being an entitled rear end in a top hat Well you got that second part right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If Hitler wanted to become a dictator and gas millions of my people, well, that was his business. Who are we to criticize him for it?? More importantly, the people actually gassed shouldn't have tried to protest and just let him do his thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Nah, it's really not your business. You're just being an entitled rear end in a top hat Maybe he is, maybe his brother is as well? Maybe it's not possible not to be an rear end in a top hat, and the recognition of this is necessary to create a functional society?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Maybe he is, maybe his brother is as well? Maybe it's not possible not to be an rear end in a top hat, and the recognition of this is necessary to create a functional society? Only assholes think this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
If you're gonna put pressure on someone to have kids then you should have to raise the kids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Probably one of my most unpopular opinions: I think the country would be a better place if the police had the power to summarily execute people without trial for certain crimes ala Judge Dredd. There's no sense having a trial for someone who killed another person with multiple witnesses, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Probably one of my most unpopular opinions: I think the country would be a better place if the police had the power to summarily execute people without trial for certain crimes ala Judge Dredd. There's no sense having a trial for someone who killed another person with multiple witnesses, for example. You should visit the USA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
My fiancé and I are marrying next year. And we're not going to have any kids at all. We will be able to go see movies, travel anywhere we want. Go out to the bar on a weeknight. It's going to be really cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Probably one of my most unpopular opinions: I think the country would be a better place if the police had the power to summarily execute people without trial for certain crimes ala Judge Dredd. There's no sense having a trial for someone who killed another person with multiple witnesses, for example. I mean, the kind of situation you're talking about is basically any "active shooter" scenario, yes? Most of those end with the shooter dead anyway, so we sort of effectively do this. The police do execute people without trial all the time and they do have the "power" to do it. Try pulling a gun in front of a cop and watch the summary execution happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I mean, the kind of situation you're talking about is basically any "active shooter" scenario, yes? Most of those end with the shooter dead anyway, so we sort of effectively do this. Not really, I'm talking about situations where they are surrendering peacefully and unarmed too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Not really, I'm talking about situations where they are surrendering peacefully and unarmed too. Well, first off, that's psychotic, but second of all, most of these hypothetical "justifiable execution" criminals who did murder in front of multiple witnesses probably aren't surrendering peacefully too often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Not really, I'm talking about situations where they are surrendering peacefully and unarmed too. You also have to be black.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Well, first off, that's psychotic, but second of all, most of these hypothetical "justifiable execution" criminals who did murder in front of multiple witnesses probably aren't surrendering peacefully too often. I think it should also apply to more crimes than just murder though but I didn't want to get "too" unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Not really, I'm talking about situations where they are surrendering peacefully and unarmed too. What hosed up mindset makes people think "Public finances are really tight, you know what would save a lot of money? A total disregard for human rights." If you think that system is so great, you can move e.g. to Brazil. There you can even kill "thugs" yourself in your private capacity, as long as they are poor enough. Or, obviously, the Philippines, where you can kill anybody you like as long as you plant some drugs on their corpse. ALso lol at the concept of witnesses in this system. Yes, I'm sure in a world where you can be gunned down with impunity as long as nobody speaks up, witnesses will boldly challenge the killers' claims about the validity of their actions, and will totally not be scared that if they testify, they will get gunned down under a made up pretense by other members of the corrupt police. steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 20:21 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Like, I don't know how you look at abuse of authority by the police in this country and then think "why don't we just give them this power officially"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What hosed up mindset makes people think "Public finances are really tight, you know what would save a lot of money? A total disregard for human rights." I think if you commit a serious crime you should forfeit human rights. And yes, it's all about saving money. Executing a criminal who deserves it under the current system is absurdly expensive and we could be spending that money on something actually worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I think if you commit a serious crime you should forfeit human rights. And yes, it's all about saving money. Executing a criminal who deserves it under the current system is absurdly expensive and we could be spending that money on something actually worthwhile. Do you like Philippines' Duerte? THe guy who literally uses your arguments to carry out hit jobs at political opponents and to strongarm people into submission?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Do you like Philippines' Duerte? THe guy who literally uses your arguments to carry out hit jobs at political opponents and to strongarm people into submission? Political opponents aren't criminals. So no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I think it should also apply to more crimes than just murder though but I didn't want to get "too" unpopular. I don't give a poo poo if you kill somebody, jaywalk or throw a gum wrapper on the ground. There should be a 1/10 chance of being shot on the spot. If you happen to live, your next offence brings it to 2/10.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
walrusman: "Look at me, I'm gonna post something so unpopular and personal that people will talk about it for days." YIEA: "Hold my beer"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Political opponents aren't criminals. So no. In a world where the police can kill anybody they like, and they are the arbiters of whether it was justified, the line between a criminal and a law obiding citizen is what the police says it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:walrusman: "Look at me, I'm gonna post something so unpopular and personal that people will talk about it for days." Stop posting the thoughts that go through my head before I post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Political opponents aren't criminals. So no. Right, you'd just have to come up with some bullshit to accuse them of first. Not hard when you basically have unchecked authority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
People who have chosen to have kids and film them with their phones held vertically should have a 1/10 chance of being shot on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In a world where the police can kill anybody they like, and they are the arbiters of whether it was justified, the line between a criminal and a law obiding citizen is what the police says it is. Just raise the standard for being a police officer so you can trust their judgement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Just raise the standard for being a police officer so you can trust their judgement. loving lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Just raise the standard for being a police officer so you can trust their judgement. Sorry, who picks them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Just raise the standard for being a police officer so you can trust their judgement. well, you're out
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Sorry, who picks them? Honestly just fire all the current police and give all the judges and lawyers guns. They'll sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
I'm starting to think this isn't a serious proposal at all!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Obviously, we should choose the leaders of various religious organizations. Because a lot of people already trust them to be the arbiters of morality. Holy folks, your guns are in the mail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
lemon-lyme disease posted:Obviously, we should choose the leaders of various religious organizations. Because a lot of people already trust them to be the arbiters of morality. That's a good point, you wouldn't want people who are incapable of possessing any morality to be part of the justice process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:00
|
|