Upload
Login or register

cabbagemayhem

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 32
Date Signed Up:2/19/2011
Last Login:11/29/2016
Location:Tennessee
Stats
Comment Ranking:#5501
Highest Content Rank:#1514
Highest Comment Rank:#843
Content Thumbs: 6998 total,  7529 ,  531
Comment Thumbs: 8305 total,  11974 ,  3669
Content Level Progress: 56.99% (57/100)
Level 166 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 167 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 90% (90/100)
Level 270 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 271 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Subscribers:1
Content Views:225300
Times Content Favorited:452 times
Total Comments Made:5946
FJ Points:13882
Favorite Tags: chan appendix (2)

latest user's comments

#218 - Everyone here who thinks snopes disproved the list is just as …  [+] (3 replies) 10/14/2016 on Hillary History 0
User avatar
#246 - failtolawl (10/15/2016) [-]
That's not the point. "Mystery" is a buzz word.. People die all the damn time.


From the article:
"Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or contradict with hard evidence."
User avatar
#261 - cabbagemayhem (10/15/2016) [-]
Yes, but some of those deaths are very suspicious. Don't forget Seth Rich [1]. Snopes listed all items, but did not refute all items. Don't be naive. It's just as ignorant to assume the list is meaningless because snopes submitted partial evidence as it is to assume its true because it's long.

1. /Clinton+assisted+suicide/funny-pictures/5997746/

EDIT: Added reference
#260 - cabbagemayhem has deleted their comment.
#172 - I'm defending him because like it or not, he's a human being. …  [+] (2 replies) 10/10/2016 on JUSTICE 0
User avatar
#173 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
I expect the one who doesn't end up with the kids to pay regardless of gender. This isn't about divorce money. This is child support. Don't try to change the subject.

Emotion doesn't alter my choices. I hate him, but that's not why I left. He was a piece of shit. That's why I left. I got tired of dealing with it and he showed no signs of getting better.

There is literally no case for his defense. The only reason I can see that you're so adamant about defending him is because you can't just drop it and admit you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake. You act like you know him better than I do despite never meeting him and ignoring everything I listed. You're so determined to twist it to him being the victim. It's so moronic that it's painful. I bet if he kicked a puppy you would say he wasn't at fault.
User avatar
#174 - cabbagemayhem (10/11/2016) [-]
So whichever parent loses their children and has to watch them grow up nothing like him, also has to pay their ex-spouse to keep them or even turn them against him? Either scenario you choose, nothing about it makes sense with gender equality. The winner of child custody should not also be able to force their ex to pay for it.

You're not very bright, so I hope you're young. I made no mistakes, you just made a very weak case against your father, and I deliberately pulled the truth out of you, and then told you that you might have a case, but that you need to tell it better next time.
#170 - "Next time someone says their dad is a piece of ****, ra…  [+] (4 replies) 10/10/2016 on JUSTICE 0
User avatar
#171 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
You don't fully understand law do you, kid. Why do you think he shouldn't have to pay? They were married for years, he made her quit her career to be a stay at home mom. The law literally says he has to pay it and there isn't even a morally questionable circumstance here. It's not like he's a good father who was trying to do right and the evil mom tore us away. He was a sack of shit. Seriously, why do you keep trying to defend him? You don't even know the douche and you seem to ignore everything I say about him, but you're still trying to defend him.
User avatar
#172 - cabbagemayhem (10/10/2016) [-]
I'm defending him because like it or not, he's a human being. That law is antiquated. It's from a time when women didn't have the same opportunities men did, and divorce was rare and not generally initiated by the woman. If you still believe that not paying makes you a bad person, tell me, for all the cases that end in the man getting custody, would you expect the woman who lost her children to also have to pay the father?

If it's just because she quit her career, then what about every relationship that ends ever? When your ex-girlfriends leave you and they don't have jobs, should you pay them for years after they're gone? There is no part of that law that is based in morality in today's post-feminism culture.

Your dad did some things that may have made him a bad guy, but your sense of right and wrong are skewed by your hatred.
User avatar
#173 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
I expect the one who doesn't end up with the kids to pay regardless of gender. This isn't about divorce money. This is child support. Don't try to change the subject.

Emotion doesn't alter my choices. I hate him, but that's not why I left. He was a piece of shit. That's why I left. I got tired of dealing with it and he showed no signs of getting better.

There is literally no case for his defense. The only reason I can see that you're so adamant about defending him is because you can't just drop it and admit you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake. You act like you know him better than I do despite never meeting him and ignoring everything I listed. You're so determined to twist it to him being the victim. It's so moronic that it's painful. I bet if he kicked a puppy you would say he wasn't at fault.
User avatar
#174 - cabbagemayhem (10/11/2016) [-]
So whichever parent loses their children and has to watch them grow up nothing like him, also has to pay their ex-spouse to keep them or even turn them against him? Either scenario you choose, nothing about it makes sense with gender equality. The winner of child custody should not also be able to force their ex to pay for it.

You're not very bright, so I hope you're young. I made no mistakes, you just made a very weak case against your father, and I deliberately pulled the truth out of you, and then told you that you might have a case, but that you need to tell it better next time.
#168 - You think I was assuming, but I was just making sure you were …  [+] (6 replies) 10/09/2016 on JUSTICE 0
User avatar
#169 - wertologist (10/09/2016) [-]
I always look at things objectively. I didn't know about the lack of payment or his other shit until after we left. I told you he was trash, but you kept defending him. Next time someone says their dad is a piece of shit, rather than argue with them about it just take their word for it. Nothing you say will change anything. If they know they are trash, nothing someone who never met them says will change their minds.

You make it sound like if someone doesn't pay child support for over ten years then they aren't a bad guy. That's only if they aren't able. He chose to waste money on himself and bought a Mercedes.

Next time you decide to argue something like this, take their word for their own experiences rather than tell them what you "know" about their specific situation.
User avatar
#170 - cabbagemayhem (10/10/2016) [-]
"Next time someone says their dad is a piece of shit, rather than argue with them about it just take their word for it."
Heh, you've got a lot to learn about people, kid. Tell me, why do you think he should still have to pay you money when your mother has equal rights, gets full custody, and it was your choice to leave him?
User avatar
#171 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
You don't fully understand law do you, kid. Why do you think he shouldn't have to pay? They were married for years, he made her quit her career to be a stay at home mom. The law literally says he has to pay it and there isn't even a morally questionable circumstance here. It's not like he's a good father who was trying to do right and the evil mom tore us away. He was a sack of shit. Seriously, why do you keep trying to defend him? You don't even know the douche and you seem to ignore everything I say about him, but you're still trying to defend him.
User avatar
#172 - cabbagemayhem (10/10/2016) [-]
I'm defending him because like it or not, he's a human being. That law is antiquated. It's from a time when women didn't have the same opportunities men did, and divorce was rare and not generally initiated by the woman. If you still believe that not paying makes you a bad person, tell me, for all the cases that end in the man getting custody, would you expect the woman who lost her children to also have to pay the father?

If it's just because she quit her career, then what about every relationship that ends ever? When your ex-girlfriends leave you and they don't have jobs, should you pay them for years after they're gone? There is no part of that law that is based in morality in today's post-feminism culture.

Your dad did some things that may have made him a bad guy, but your sense of right and wrong are skewed by your hatred.
User avatar
#173 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
I expect the one who doesn't end up with the kids to pay regardless of gender. This isn't about divorce money. This is child support. Don't try to change the subject.

Emotion doesn't alter my choices. I hate him, but that's not why I left. He was a piece of shit. That's why I left. I got tired of dealing with it and he showed no signs of getting better.

There is literally no case for his defense. The only reason I can see that you're so adamant about defending him is because you can't just drop it and admit you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake. You act like you know him better than I do despite never meeting him and ignoring everything I listed. You're so determined to twist it to him being the victim. It's so moronic that it's painful. I bet if he kicked a puppy you would say he wasn't at fault.
User avatar
#174 - cabbagemayhem (10/11/2016) [-]
So whichever parent loses their children and has to watch them grow up nothing like him, also has to pay their ex-spouse to keep them or even turn them against him? Either scenario you choose, nothing about it makes sense with gender equality. The winner of child custody should not also be able to force their ex to pay for it.

You're not very bright, so I hope you're young. I made no mistakes, you just made a very weak case against your father, and I deliberately pulled the truth out of you, and then told you that you might have a case, but that you need to tell it better next time.
#157 - "You don't even know my story, but you jump to assume I'…  [+] (8 replies) 10/07/2016 on JUSTICE -1
User avatar
#167 - wertologist (10/09/2016) [-]
When did I lash at anyone trying to paint him as bad? You must have misread. My dad was drinking like a fish far before I was even born and my parents divorced when I was one.

"You sound like the product of your mother"

Making more assumptions without knowing.

>spankings

Is that what you think physical abuse means? I mean he actually hit us out of anger. Not punishment. That's what physical abuse is.

Of all the things I listed, all you choose to acknowledge is the money related one? You're even skeptical on it. There's a warrant out for his arrest because he stopped paying it. How is that reason for you to try to defend his side?

Even his own sisters know he's a piece of shit. They invite us to their family gatherings and exclude him.

I seriously don't know why you're so dead set on trying to convince me he's not a piece of shit. I know the guy and you never even met him and are ignoring my comments. So how is it that you seem to know him better than me?

It seems that no matter what he's done, you'll try to say he's not the bad guy. I could tell you how he left me on the side of the highway at 6 years old because I didn't know how to celebrate thanksgiving properly. I could tell you how he would hit me and scold my brother and I if we ever embarrassed him in any way. I could tell you how he beat my mother numerous times. I could tell you how he beat all three of his kids. I could tell you how he threw rabbit shit at my face in anger. I could tell you everything he did and I bet you'd still try to paint him as not a piece of shit.
User avatar
#168 - cabbagemayhem (10/09/2016) [-]
You think I was assuming, but I was just making sure you were looking at it objectively. Now you've proven your case; however, of all the accusations you've made against him, only your last paragraph would qualify as a reason to call a father trash. All of that about money, child support, arrest warrant for not paying money, losing job, and not getting invited to social gatherings are not reasons to turn on a father. It's more like women to consider those to be reasons to leave someone.

I'm sorry about your situation. Next time you tell the story, start with your last paragraph. It doesn't leave anything open for interpretation.
User avatar
#169 - wertologist (10/09/2016) [-]
I always look at things objectively. I didn't know about the lack of payment or his other shit until after we left. I told you he was trash, but you kept defending him. Next time someone says their dad is a piece of shit, rather than argue with them about it just take their word for it. Nothing you say will change anything. If they know they are trash, nothing someone who never met them says will change their minds.

You make it sound like if someone doesn't pay child support for over ten years then they aren't a bad guy. That's only if they aren't able. He chose to waste money on himself and bought a Mercedes.

Next time you decide to argue something like this, take their word for their own experiences rather than tell them what you "know" about their specific situation.
User avatar
#170 - cabbagemayhem (10/10/2016) [-]
"Next time someone says their dad is a piece of shit, rather than argue with them about it just take their word for it."
Heh, you've got a lot to learn about people, kid. Tell me, why do you think he should still have to pay you money when your mother has equal rights, gets full custody, and it was your choice to leave him?
User avatar
#171 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
You don't fully understand law do you, kid. Why do you think he shouldn't have to pay? They were married for years, he made her quit her career to be a stay at home mom. The law literally says he has to pay it and there isn't even a morally questionable circumstance here. It's not like he's a good father who was trying to do right and the evil mom tore us away. He was a sack of shit. Seriously, why do you keep trying to defend him? You don't even know the douche and you seem to ignore everything I say about him, but you're still trying to defend him.
User avatar
#172 - cabbagemayhem (10/10/2016) [-]
I'm defending him because like it or not, he's a human being. That law is antiquated. It's from a time when women didn't have the same opportunities men did, and divorce was rare and not generally initiated by the woman. If you still believe that not paying makes you a bad person, tell me, for all the cases that end in the man getting custody, would you expect the woman who lost her children to also have to pay the father?

If it's just because she quit her career, then what about every relationship that ends ever? When your ex-girlfriends leave you and they don't have jobs, should you pay them for years after they're gone? There is no part of that law that is based in morality in today's post-feminism culture.

Your dad did some things that may have made him a bad guy, but your sense of right and wrong are skewed by your hatred.
User avatar
#173 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
I expect the one who doesn't end up with the kids to pay regardless of gender. This isn't about divorce money. This is child support. Don't try to change the subject.

Emotion doesn't alter my choices. I hate him, but that's not why I left. He was a piece of shit. That's why I left. I got tired of dealing with it and he showed no signs of getting better.

There is literally no case for his defense. The only reason I can see that you're so adamant about defending him is because you can't just drop it and admit you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake. You act like you know him better than I do despite never meeting him and ignoring everything I listed. You're so determined to twist it to him being the victim. It's so moronic that it's painful. I bet if he kicked a puppy you would say he wasn't at fault.
User avatar
#174 - cabbagemayhem (10/11/2016) [-]
So whichever parent loses their children and has to watch them grow up nothing like him, also has to pay their ex-spouse to keep them or even turn them against him? Either scenario you choose, nothing about it makes sense with gender equality. The winner of child custody should not also be able to force their ex to pay for it.

You're not very bright, so I hope you're young. I made no mistakes, you just made a very weak case against your father, and I deliberately pulled the truth out of you, and then told you that you might have a case, but that you need to tell it better next time.
#153 - Heh. I'm just giving you advice, not attitude. Everyone else i…  [+] (10 replies) 10/07/2016 on JUSTICE -1
User avatar
#154 - wertologist (10/07/2016) [-]
>absence of details

Read my other comments.

You don't even know my story, but you jump to assume I'm missing out. You really don't know my father so you don't understand how shirty he was. If you knew him, you would have done the same. Your claim about single mothers is actually pretty damn sexist(and not the tumblr type). I know plenty of mothers who took on the "father" role.

Don't give advice if you don't understand the situation. Even my oldest brother(half brother) cut away from him. The stories he told me of before I was born were fucked up. My mom didn't tell me a lot of shit until way after we cut away because she didn't want to taint his image to us.

You do have an arrogant attitude. You claimed your siblings were less intelligent than you solely because they didn't stay with your dad. That shows arrogance.

I had him in my life for 10 years. No real positive effects. Mostly negative. My older brother shares his self centered personality so that's actually evidence to show prolonged exposure to him is bad. You seem to be thinking he's the typical divorced father. The one who you only see on weekends. The guy was a huge asshole. Lost his job and lied to my face about it for years. When he let it slip, I called him on it and denied lying. I never got the details on why, but I assume it was due to his constant drinking. I never saw him not drunk. He had a bad temper and was abusive(physically and verbally). He mooched off his friends for years. Lived in their houses rent free for years. Now he lives with his oblivious fiance. Still drinks heavily and lives off social security and disability(caused by decades of severe drinking). For years he lied to everyone saying my mother turned us against him and how he tried to get us back. Most if not all people knew he was full of shit and his own sister exploded at him because he was blatantly lying. Aside from one phone call, I didn't hear from him for ten years.

My life got significantly better after he was out of my life. You made all these assumptions, but didn't read any of the things I wrote in other comments. You evidently don't know what you're talking about.
User avatar
#157 - cabbagemayhem (10/07/2016) [-]
"You don't even know my story, but you jump to assume I'm missing out."

You dipshit! Of course, I did -- but I don't see you lashing out at the people who assumed your dad was the bad guy in all this. You turn your back on your dad for vague reasons, and just expect everyone to take your side? I don't see his side of the story here.

The more you say, the less he sounds like the perpetrator, and the more you sound like the product of your mother. This is very common these days.

>the woman divorces the man
>woman retains custody
>man tries to be a father one day a week; not enough time, can't create structure
>man is vilified to his own children because "dads are meaner than moms"
>man sees his children growing up without life lessons
>man goes into depression
>man is further vilified for not living a normal life

If you told me something substantial and detailed, besides "he spanked me", I might agree with you, but because of all of this money-based vilifying of him, I'm disinclined to believe you, so you need to hear what could be the hard truth.
User avatar
#167 - wertologist (10/09/2016) [-]
When did I lash at anyone trying to paint him as bad? You must have misread. My dad was drinking like a fish far before I was even born and my parents divorced when I was one.

"You sound like the product of your mother"

Making more assumptions without knowing.

>spankings

Is that what you think physical abuse means? I mean he actually hit us out of anger. Not punishment. That's what physical abuse is.

Of all the things I listed, all you choose to acknowledge is the money related one? You're even skeptical on it. There's a warrant out for his arrest because he stopped paying it. How is that reason for you to try to defend his side?

Even his own sisters know he's a piece of shit. They invite us to their family gatherings and exclude him.

I seriously don't know why you're so dead set on trying to convince me he's not a piece of shit. I know the guy and you never even met him and are ignoring my comments. So how is it that you seem to know him better than me?

It seems that no matter what he's done, you'll try to say he's not the bad guy. I could tell you how he left me on the side of the highway at 6 years old because I didn't know how to celebrate thanksgiving properly. I could tell you how he would hit me and scold my brother and I if we ever embarrassed him in any way. I could tell you how he beat my mother numerous times. I could tell you how he beat all three of his kids. I could tell you how he threw rabbit shit at my face in anger. I could tell you everything he did and I bet you'd still try to paint him as not a piece of shit.
User avatar
#168 - cabbagemayhem (10/09/2016) [-]
You think I was assuming, but I was just making sure you were looking at it objectively. Now you've proven your case; however, of all the accusations you've made against him, only your last paragraph would qualify as a reason to call a father trash. All of that about money, child support, arrest warrant for not paying money, losing job, and not getting invited to social gatherings are not reasons to turn on a father. It's more like women to consider those to be reasons to leave someone.

I'm sorry about your situation. Next time you tell the story, start with your last paragraph. It doesn't leave anything open for interpretation.
User avatar
#169 - wertologist (10/09/2016) [-]
I always look at things objectively. I didn't know about the lack of payment or his other shit until after we left. I told you he was trash, but you kept defending him. Next time someone says their dad is a piece of shit, rather than argue with them about it just take their word for it. Nothing you say will change anything. If they know they are trash, nothing someone who never met them says will change their minds.

You make it sound like if someone doesn't pay child support for over ten years then they aren't a bad guy. That's only if they aren't able. He chose to waste money on himself and bought a Mercedes.

Next time you decide to argue something like this, take their word for their own experiences rather than tell them what you "know" about their specific situation.
User avatar
#170 - cabbagemayhem (10/10/2016) [-]
"Next time someone says their dad is a piece of shit, rather than argue with them about it just take their word for it."
Heh, you've got a lot to learn about people, kid. Tell me, why do you think he should still have to pay you money when your mother has equal rights, gets full custody, and it was your choice to leave him?
User avatar
#171 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
You don't fully understand law do you, kid. Why do you think he shouldn't have to pay? They were married for years, he made her quit her career to be a stay at home mom. The law literally says he has to pay it and there isn't even a morally questionable circumstance here. It's not like he's a good father who was trying to do right and the evil mom tore us away. He was a sack of shit. Seriously, why do you keep trying to defend him? You don't even know the douche and you seem to ignore everything I say about him, but you're still trying to defend him.
User avatar
#172 - cabbagemayhem (10/10/2016) [-]
I'm defending him because like it or not, he's a human being. That law is antiquated. It's from a time when women didn't have the same opportunities men did, and divorce was rare and not generally initiated by the woman. If you still believe that not paying makes you a bad person, tell me, for all the cases that end in the man getting custody, would you expect the woman who lost her children to also have to pay the father?

If it's just because she quit her career, then what about every relationship that ends ever? When your ex-girlfriends leave you and they don't have jobs, should you pay them for years after they're gone? There is no part of that law that is based in morality in today's post-feminism culture.

Your dad did some things that may have made him a bad guy, but your sense of right and wrong are skewed by your hatred.
User avatar
#173 - wertologist (10/10/2016) [-]
I expect the one who doesn't end up with the kids to pay regardless of gender. This isn't about divorce money. This is child support. Don't try to change the subject.

Emotion doesn't alter my choices. I hate him, but that's not why I left. He was a piece of shit. That's why I left. I got tired of dealing with it and he showed no signs of getting better.

There is literally no case for his defense. The only reason I can see that you're so adamant about defending him is because you can't just drop it and admit you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with admitting a mistake. You act like you know him better than I do despite never meeting him and ignoring everything I listed. You're so determined to twist it to him being the victim. It's so moronic that it's painful. I bet if he kicked a puppy you would say he wasn't at fault.
User avatar
#174 - cabbagemayhem (10/11/2016) [-]
So whichever parent loses their children and has to watch them grow up nothing like him, also has to pay their ex-spouse to keep them or even turn them against him? Either scenario you choose, nothing about it makes sense with gender equality. The winner of child custody should not also be able to force their ex to pay for it.

You're not very bright, so I hope you're young. I made no mistakes, you just made a very weak case against your father, and I deliberately pulled the truth out of you, and then told you that you might have a case, but that you need to tell it better next time.
#354 - An eye for an eye has been the measure of true justice since t…  [+] (24 replies) 10/06/2016 on jesus +6
#393 - capnkrunch (10/06/2016) [-]
Eye for an eye is savage revenge. We are better than that, and we have been better than that. Let the scum rot, but no man, not me, not you, not the highest of political leaders has any right to take a mans life without any true cause, ie War and or to save more lives than would otherwise be possible(Excepting putting someone out of their misery), no matter the crime. Is this Saudi Arabia? Shall we stone criminals next? How about the Guillotine, or lynching? When do we see what is savage human emotion and what is justice? As victhree says, true justice transcends pure emotion and does not approach the subject with any favouritism or hatred, it simply is.

Of course you may disagree, but my position is firm
User avatar
#475 - cabbagemayhem (10/07/2016) [-]
Allow me to respond. Indeed, the purpose of justice is to remove evil from society, and if it can be removed without further bloodshed, all the better. However, the evil is not the man himself, but his thoughts. A man who does evil is not restrained by his conscience, so to remove the evil from society, it must be restrained by fear. With eye-for-an-eye, his every choice will be weighed by the harm it does to others as if it were himself. Eye-for-an-eye is the imbuement of the golden rule into men who do not live by it. There is nothing emotional about that principle, emotions just tend to agree.

Now, to complete the system and allow for the most good while retaining the deterrent, forgiveness and mercy must be given to some; but they are exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself.
#394 - ilikepatatas (10/06/2016) [-]
>burning a sadistic murderer the same as stoning a thief
yeah sure buddy
#397 - capnkrunch (10/06/2016) [-]
Does it matter the crime? We will not and should not kill someone for the sake of some pitiful revenge desire.
#409 - ilikepatatas (10/06/2016) [-]
now that i think about it, it prevents people from doing more fucked up things when they know that the same is going to be done to them so yeah

not completely revenge
#407 - ilikepatatas (10/06/2016) [-]
its the more logic action
the punishment is the same as the offense

if a thief steals, the government steals from the thief
if a rapist rapes, he's condemned to jail where he's raped by inmates
if a murderer kills ,in most places, he's sentenced to death

it may be revenge as my sleep deprived mind just realized
but it's not unfair nor brutal
it's very simple

Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.
#410 - capnkrunch (10/06/2016) [-]
How is that not brutal? And how is stealing from a thief okay? The don't do unto others part applies to everyone, not just criminals. We have no right to take anyones life excluding war assuming the war itself is "just" and or to save more.
#414 - ilikepatatas (10/06/2016) [-]
when the punishment is severe yet fair it does an amazing job at preventing crime
and the government already steals from thiefs, you gotta pay for what you steal plus reparations
that's practically it
#419 - capnkrunch (10/06/2016) [-]
That's not really stealing though, that's just reperations, that part of eye for an eye is the only part that still holds up In my opinion today. And I simply disagree that the taking of a life is "fair", or rather Just, punishment for anything
#431 - ilikepatatas (10/06/2016) [-]
that to me is just honestly a stupid ideology implanted on your head from movies and other shit
if you think about it without a bias you realize that it's pretty much the best, most logic course of action
killing a killer so the killer stops killing
that "but you'd be a killer anyways and in the end there'd be less people" is bullshit and it would honestly even be remotely relevant if we weren't 7 billion fucking humans
killers getting killed won't turn other people into murderers, at least not for fun, in fact it will make less people want to become murderers because they'll know that they could get killed if they did
and before you go all saying it's soo harsh, keep in mind that this only applies to people who have the murder of others in mind, so they clear their head from murderous ideas.
it's not gonna affect you nor me nor the granny that makes you cookies sometimes
#437 - capnkrunch (10/06/2016) [-]
Just imprison them, they are scum and should serve for life, but we shouldn't kill them. They still wouldn't kill, and besides, god forbid someone is falsely accused(The fucker in the OP obviously wasn't) and we kill them quickly and evidence comes freeing them, then what? It's not like I am saying we should have some Utopian bullshit where we are nice to murderers and allow them to leave if they are good boys, but I don't think we should torture them, or even kill them.
#441 - ilikepatatas (10/06/2016) [-]
that's where we agree, because i do believe that being sentenced to life in prison is the same as a death sentence
but this nigger will get 60 years max, 30 min
most likely he'll be free before he dies
#440 - ilikepatatas has deleted their comment.
#411 - capnkrunch (10/06/2016) [-]
Like I said however, that is my opinion, you are free to have your own, and I can understand the "Punisher" mindset, I really can, I just don't agree with it on an ethical level
#402 - ilikepatatas has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#374 - victhree (10/06/2016) [-]
I disagree. Eye for an eye isn't Justice, it's just revenge.
User avatar
#379 - randacc (10/06/2016) [-]
who decides what justice is besides the people themselves?
User avatar
#381 - victhree (10/06/2016) [-]
The idea of justice is to transcend human whim.
User avatar
#387 - randacc (10/06/2016) [-]
i still feel he should lose his life/rights, whether its life of hard labor in prison(cause kind of dumb wasting tax money, and tons of resources others strive just to keep, which almost rewards those going to prison, besides what inmates do to each other) or execution
User avatar
#391 - victhree (10/06/2016) [-]
But life is an inalienable right. Nothing you can do may remove your right to life (and I believe that makes sense).
User avatar
#396 - randacc (10/06/2016) [-]
not even removing anothers? some even earlier than others? even when their last moments were nothing but suffering you still give them 3 cooked meals a day, shelter, and no work required all from performing a crime? something people in poverty strive to have a consistant source of? and despite what theyve done, they get a stress less life, unlike if they didnt commit the crime, and a death of old age, thatll probably be paid by taxpayer money through social security when he gets out old. our prison system is a joke, besides inmates, its like a congratulations. then if you get lucky, and too many people committed as heinous crimes as you, you get set free, regardless of how long you had left.
User avatar
#400 - victhree (10/06/2016) [-]
You are underestimating how harsh prison is. Besides, jail is already a huge punishment. It cancels your right to freedom. Granted, it is justified because it's intended to keep dangerous people away, but still.
User avatar
#404 - randacc (10/06/2016) [-]
they need nicer prisons for the minor offenses while harsher for murderers, child molesters and the likes. cause with his family being all supportive, he could easily have them bring anything he wants like books and such to read
User avatar
#408 - victhree (10/06/2016) [-]
I don't think prisons should be harsh. They should only meet one purpose: to keep dangerous individuals away from people they could harm. Anything else is just revenge.

I do agree though, that minor offences like selling pot should't result in complete removal from society, since the potential damage is small.