So if a man kills another man

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm saying because someone raped a baby before destroys your argument of moral absolution.

No, it doesn't as you're confusing fact (is) with value (ought). Now, answer the question, please.
​

 

[88m3]

No, it doesn't as you're confusing fact (is) with value (ought). Now, answer the question, please.
​

Well in that case how do you guys feel about mentally disabled people and physically disabled people?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Well in that case ow do you guys feel about mentally disabled people and physically disabled people?

Not sure what you mean by that question.​

 

[88m3]

Not sure what you mean by that question.​

Originally Posted by 88m3
Well in that case how do you guys feel about mentally disabled people and physically disabled people?

What would you do to them?

 

[dem bath salts]

That's the same ish that went thru christian bale's mind in american psycho when he killed that bum. You might want to seek help, the paths in your mind are leading to darkness.

 

[dem bath salts]

I have to return some video tapes.

didn't even see this but thought the same ish.

 

[dem bath salts]

No joke that's some Ted Bundy shyt right here.

Whichever one of you fuks is the mole FBI agent / homeland security guy you need to follow that IP address to the dank, blood crusted, 22-decomposing-body-filled-basement we all know it leads too.

I got money on their being a cage with at LEAST 2 children in it too.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

What would you do to them?

Make them return some video tapes and, perhaps, offer them a box of chocolates.​

 

[88m3]

I've got a reservation at Dorsia.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

A better question is. If one person shoots a guy and he dies. Another person shoots a guy who lives. Why is the first person given the worse prison sentence? The action was the same the intentions were the same. Shouldn't the punishment be the same?

If prison is to rehabilitate, and deter crime shouldn't both people get the same sentence.

Ostensibly, but there is an undeniable eye for an eye aspect to sentencing in the justice system so that will never be the case. At any rate deeds>>> intent and i like that its legislated that way.

 

[Liu Kang]

Sophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logic seems valid, but argument is flawed from the start.
There's no arguing needed here but I respect OP for that sophistic trolling.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Ostensibly, but there is an undeniable eye for an eye aspect to sentencing in the justice system so that will never be the case. At any rate deeds>>> intent and i like that its legislated that way.

Well they should stop claiming prison is to rehabilitate, and call it what it is, revenge

I disagree with the bolded. I believe intensions should be punished. Drunk driver hits a tree=no punishment, drunk driver hits a pedestrian= 25 years in jail.

Both people violated the same law. Both people acted carelessly, both should be punished the same.

 

[88m3]

Well they should stop claiming prison is to rehabilitate, and call it what it is, revenge

I disagree with the bolded. I believe intensions should be punished. Drunk driver hits a tree=no punishment, drunk driver hits a pedestrian= 25 years in jail.

Both people violated the same law. Both people acted carelessly, both should be punished the same.

What if a tree hits a car?
Or a tree hits a pedestrian?
Or a pedestrian hits a tree?
Or a pediatrician hits a punishment?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

What if a tree hits a car?
Or a tree hits a pedestrian?
Or a pedestrian hits a tree?
Or a pediatrician hits a punishment?

 

[Dooby]

No, it doesn't as you're confusing fact (is) with value (ought). Now, answer the question, please.
​

What is your definition of moral absolution then, god dammit.