UK General Election 2017 Megathread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Well you haven't answered my comparison/moral dilemma regarding war and innocents so I assume you are not a pacifist in which case your moral objection regarding the possible executions of innocents doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

But you *hope* I experience it? In that case I say I sincerely hope you do *not* have to experience what the families of the victims of Brady and Hindley have suffered through years of torments from this evil demon. No family should have to go through that *after* a murder which is bad enough in itself, and no nation should go through it either. He along with her should have been hanged back in the early 1970s. But you think he should have lived?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/13...ears-favoured/

I think restoring the death penalty would win over 60% of the vote. For the campaign, we'd simply have to screen the pictures of Brady, Hindley and the rest of them over the country with the words 'JUSTICE' printed underneath. It's about time we had some.



I'm not talking about the United States' justice system. I'm talking about the British Injustice system.

I want Brady et el hanged by the neck until dead and I would do it myself. No doubt in my mind on this topic just as there's no doubt in my mind that I would launch airstrikes against enemy targets even with the knowledge that innocent people may well die.

---

Ooh look, another angry conservative avoiding statistics again, and plucking things I said out the air.

Also, let me explain what a pacifist is to you. As a 14 year old, I seem to know better than you.

A pacifist will not fight anybody.

A decent human being will fight but not kill random innocent people.

Hope this helps.

Also, it will be the same bomb killing terrorists and innocents, so it's not even comparable to this situation. It won't be the same trial killing innocents and murderers, so innocents shouldn't be sentenced to death if that's not killing murderers too in the SAME sentence.

One bomb kills 90% terrorists and 10% innocents, we can't change that. These figures are approximate, I'm not going to pretend they're real like a conservative would.

One sentence kills either 100% innocents or 100% murderers. Big difference sweetie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Also, let me explain what a pacifist is to you. As a 14 year old, I seem to know better than you.

---

If you say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

A pacifist will not fight anybody.

A decent human being will fight but not kill random innocent people.

Hope this helps.

---

Wow I never knew that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

Also, it will be the same bomb killing terrorists and innocents, so it's not even comparable to this situation. It won't be the same trial killing innocents and murderers, so innocents shouldn't be sentenced to death if that's not killing murderers too in the SAME sentence.

One bomb kills 90% terrorists and 10% innocents, we can't change that. These figures are approximate, I'm not going to pretend they're real like a conservative would.

One sentence kills either 100% innocents or 100% murderers. Big difference sweetie.

---

I'm sorry but you're trying to divide it up to make some sense and it just isn't working. Taking airstrikes as a whole and the death penalty as a whole, let us say for arguments sake that the rate of innocent death is both is 10%. For arguments sake.

Now with airstrikes you're seemingly fine with them, but against giving the go ahead for the death penalty. This seems rather strange from a moral point of view to me in that you're supporting taking the action which results in innocent deaths *without* any checks and balances yet are against supporting the action which may result in innocent deaths but which has numerous checks and balances on it in regards to being charged, DNA evidence, video evidence, a trial by jury, sentencing by a Judge and multiple appeals following sentencing. Not being a pacifist I would be willing to give the go ahead to both, but I am *far* more comfortable giving the go-ahead to the death penalty which has checks and balances on than airstrikes.

Let's face it - the reason you object to the death penalty isn't the issue of innocents being killed at all. It's just a smoke-screen most people who oppose the death penalty use. Only a pacifist can take such a position in which case a pacifist shouldn't be involved in the running of State. So what's your *real* objection to the death penalty I wonder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If you say so.



Wow I never knew that.



I'm sorry but you're trying to divide it up to make some sense and it just isn't working. Taking airstrikes as a whole and the death penalty as a whole, let us say for arguments sake that the rate of innocent death is both is 10%. For arguments sake.

Now with airstrikes you're seemingly fine with them, but against giving the go ahead for the death penalty. This seems rather strange from a moral point of view to me in that you're supporting taking the action which results in innocent deaths *without* any checks and balances yet are against supporting the action which may result in innocent deaths but which has numerous checks and balances on it in regards to being charged, DNA evidence, video evidence, a trial by jury, sentencing by a Judge and multiple appeals following sentencing. Not being a pacifist I would be willing to give the go ahead to both, but I am *far* more comfortable giving the go-ahead to the death penalty which has checks and balances on than airstrikes.

Let's face it - the reason you object to the death penalty isn't the issue of innocents being killed at all. It's just a smoke-screen most people who oppose the death penalty use. Only a pacifist can take such a position in which case a pacifist shouldn't be involved in the running of State. So what's your *real* objection to the death penalty I wonder?

---

My real objection is with a single bomb, you're guaranteed to kill some murderers. With a single sentence, you're not. What's so difficult to understand?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hungryfront

My real objection is with a single bomb, you're guaranteed to kill some murderers. With a single sentence, you're not. What's so difficult to understand?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

---

We're talking about a system, not a single airstrike (no jury, judge, appeals) or single murder conviction (jury, judge, appeals). Your morality on this is upside down. On one hand you're conceding it likely you'll kill innocents with that airstrike and being willing to still do it, but on the other with a *convicted* murderer who has been put through months of trial, a jury and then multiple appeals you're then saying it isn't guaranteed. If somebody is convicted by the courts of murder then it pretty much is a given that they are guilty of that murder.

An airstrike is made in the full knowledge that innocents will more than likely be killed. But that's fine with you. I'm obviously a monster but I have far more trouble pushing the button on people I know are innocent than somebody I know - a la Ian Brady - is guilty and who the prosecutors have had to *prove* his guilt than the other way around of Brady having to prove his innocence.

I am far more content with the State killing people when it has checks and balances (death penalty) then when it does not (war).

You're both making morally ambiguous statements - one of you is happy to have innocent people among the detritus of war damage (somewhat reminiscent of an eggs/omelette quote) while the other is happy to have innocent people put to death as long as the govt *thinks* they're guilty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

We're talking about a system, not a single airstrike (no jury, judge, appeals) or single murder conviction (jury, judge, appeals). Your morality on this is upside down. On one hand you're conceding it likely you'll kill innocents with that airstrike and being willing to still do it, but on the other with a *convicted* murderer who has been put through months of trial, a jury and then multiple appeals you're then saying it isn't guaranteed. If somebody is convicted by the courts of murder then it pretty much is a given that they are guilty of that murder.

An airstrike is made in the full knowledge that innocents will more than likely be killed. But that's fine with you. I'm obviously a monster but I have far more trouble pushing the button on people I know are innocent than somebody I know - a la Ian Brady - is guilty and who the prosecutors have had to *prove* his guilt than the other way around of Brady having to prove his innocence.

I am far more content with the State killing people when it has checks and balances (death penalty) then when it does not (war).

---

I'm not talking about a whole system, don't twist my words.

And let me remind you, there are alternatives to the death sentence, there's not always alternatives to war.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

That's a very silly argument against the death penalty. It's like saying don't go to war or launch airstrikes against terror camps because statistically there could be innocent people killed. With any system there exists the scope for error. That said, in the modern day with DNA, video and appeals we can often now know for certain - and we certainly did with Brady and Hindley. Both of them should have been hanged as should murderers such as Ian Huntley, Michael Adebolajo, Michael Adebowale and Mark Bridger.

And if Her Majesty's Government ever needs someone to pull the trapdoor i'll do it for free.

---

God forbid you kill a foetus that isn't even aware of its own existence, but sure go bomb all the innocents you want. Bit of a double standard?
And in fact, yes, you shouldn't go to war (on the offensive) because innocent people will be killed.

Polls suggesting the Labour Party moving up but this is not at the expense of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 49% (-)
LAB: 34% (+8)
LDEM: 7% (-6)
GRN: 3% (+2)
UKIP: 2% (-2)

(via @IpsosMORI)https://t.co/GLMpKNTbZI

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) May 18, 2017

Possible on those numbers that the Liberal Democrats will have to fight to defend their remaining 9 seats...

Tim Farron under mounting pressure from senior Lib Dems amid concerns his anti-Brexit message isn't working https://t.co/0Ylsq400ie pic.twitter.com/69HUFiTi4P

— Telegraph Breaking News (@TelegraphNews) May 17, 2017

A few years ago we were talking about the disintegration of the two-party system.

Now the Tories and Labour are taking support *away* from Ukip, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid and the SNP.

BBC's Peter Barnes says today's polls put Lab (30%) and Con (48%) - nearly 80% together. It was last 78% in 92 and last over 80% in 79.

— Sir David Butler (@SirDavidButler) May 17, 2017

Suggestion to @lemons; (thread creator) and @Charlie; @despect; (moderators).

Re-name the thread to UK General Election 2017 and stickie it?

If @lemons; and everyone else is okay with it (don't want a slap on the wrist :P), I'll happily do so.

The Tory manifesto came out today and for me, this is the key part and what is deciding my vote miles ahead of anything else.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAG0aeSUQAE4KX8.jpg

Exactly what I wanted. I wasn't 100% committed to the blues until I saw this.

Already outlined in the Lancaster House speech and Government white paper, but explicit here in the manifesto.