Pixar Intro Parody

extremely funny

lololol

awesome

I found it sad. And it made me actively introspect about how I feel about the death sentence.

you for or against?

Against.

why?

Because it is a barbaric punishment that in no form or shape represents justice?

Punishments are meant to protect society AND himself from his criminal activity. Rehabilitation is the goal of modern civilized justice, the death penalty does not provide in that service. If later gets concluded that the prosecuted person was in fact innocent, there is no way to reverse the death penalty. And it puts power into the hands of jurisdiction, which it should not receive.

Yea I'm with Boom. If you take the life out of a criminal, what punishment is that? He just gets away from it all.
The criminals must be kept locked up and made learn what they've done is wrong.

Anyway the pic was god, a bit touching. The music owned.

I'm also contemplating whether or not this was manslaughter instead of murder. One could argue that the lamp acted on a premise that he would not cause harm to the I, like in precedent cases (the 'regular' intro). Then of course you'll get into a debate whether or not this is a case of criminal negligence. Recklessness is not considerable seeing how the lamp did not foresee the outcome.

This video has a deep underlying, and inadvertent, meaning

Imagine:
What if the lamp had raped and mudered 7 kids, and he was caught in the act.
You know, as well as me, that the lamp isn't going to get free. Therefore the rehabilitation arguement is invalid.
And as the lamp is certain to be guilty, he will and should not get free. Or even, if you put someone in jail for 50 years, and then figure out he's innocent, wouldn't'e've rather died?
In this case I am pro death penalty.
Also, death penalty should not be considered a 'punishment'. It is the removal of those who cannot function in or out our society, by death instead of putting them out of sight.
The difference is none, but the latter just makes less sense, as they are torn from their lives, but their lives not from them. From that point of view, locking people up perpetually is more barbaric than performing involuntary euthanasia.

As for the current case of the lamp, the age of the lamp matters; and I think the lamp is rather young. Definatly not a full-grown, adult lamp. I derive that from the fact that the lamp killed (killed, not murdered) i by accident, in a very childish, playfull mood.
Therefore the lamp should be treated a minor.

I refuse to comment on Lone's lamp lol, but I agree on Booms' point of view.

Every person has the right to live, and no institution should ever be given the power to disown someone of that right.

Only a person himself, or their guards in case the person does not have the required conscience to act for himself (the mentally handicapped), can deprive himself of his life. Every person has the right to die as well.

I find yet again your stream of thought so dangerous. If you give the state (or to be more precise, the judiciary) the power to murder (which the death penalty falls under, to kill with intent), then you open up the gate for the Islamic law countries.
-> Homosexual people cannot function in society, so we must kill them.
-> Atheists cannot function in society, so we must kill them.
-> Adulterers cannot function in society, so we must kill them.

If you base a law with such a strong effect as the death penalty, which flat out goes against the basic right of mankind (the right to live), on the shaky premises of morality, you enter dangerous and totalitarian realms of political power.

I know that when a huge mass murderer gets caught, there is always sudden support for the death penalty, but that is always an emotional fling, never a rationality-based opinion.

The death penalty cannot be argued for, only argued against.

note: murder is not the same as kill
You're sounding like a religious fag in the first part; but only changed "god" to "himself"
I think that putting people in jail (perpetually) is as much deciding their life as killing them.
Death sentence does not mean it will be used on all sorts of crimes, or stuff that aren't crimes. What are you saying? that being gay, atheist or an adulterer is equally bad as infanticide? I know that's not what you want to say, but you express it rather oddily.
You don't put people lifelong in jail for being gay do you? So there's no reason to perform involuntary euthanasia.
You say IF we are to reintroduce death penalty THEN we "open the gates to Islamic laws"
explain the connection please. It's like if a car is yellow, all cars are yellow. wtf

You say death penalty "goes against the basic right of mankind (the right to live)". Isn't the right to be free equally important? What is life without freedom? Isn't putting people in jail (PERPETUALLY) the same 'crime' as killing them for the stuff they have done?
I believe in death penalty, but ONLY on rare occasions and for those who won't get free ever again.

(and WHY, OH WHY did you drop the metaphore?!!!)

I never said I support perpetual imprisonment. Rehabilitation is the goal.

In Arabic countries, all those people are punishable to death. They use the same legitimation: they cannot function in their society. Which, what I tried to prove, is a dangerous moral premise to support the death penalty.

I don't believe in death penalty, at all.

I'm not gonna argue this further, because we disagree on the basis of both our arguments: whether or not the state should be allowed to take away someone's right to live. I don't see either of us changing his opinion.

Maybe I just value human lives less:/
and rehabilitation is not always possible mate
But I do agree with you on 1 thing: reintroducing death penalty would be a wast of time, since it hardly evens matters to kill someone or put him lifelong in prison, and it's not often used anways.

Not really caring about the posts above, but I loled at the 8==D