Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[Arthur Brain]

You pick up bad habits from watching The Barbarian on TOL, for he, too has this weird thing about him what makes him always feeling it necessary to refer to himself in the third person. Nevertheless, thanks for chiming in.

Almost inventive for you.

You didn't answer the question:

Should Children Be Executed If They've...Not Yet Been Born, And Are Still Living Inside Their Mother's Womb, And Their Mother Does Not Want Them To Be Born Alive?​

It wouldn't be an execution so no and the abortion issue is one that needs sober discussion, not sound bites or triviality.

I'm glad to hear it. I remember once hearing something along the lines that Nat Hentoff--the guy that wrote liner notes in a lot of the albums in my jazz collection--was something of a leftist, and yet, swam against the general leftist current by being anti baby-murder. I like stuff like that, yeah.

What your idea of a "leftist" is is anyone's guess but when you call people like me "Nazi Leftards" it only shows a complete ignorance. I despise what the Nazis stood for and did, from their totalitarian regime inflicted on people to the butchery of people from race to creed to orientation and belief including people who were on the "left".

Without ever having really reflected on the question, all I can say, now, is that I'd have to admit that I could not support doing that at all. Let me put it this way: I, for one, will never be calling for that, or giving a hearty "Amen" to it, were it to occur.

Well, good for you on that score at least.

 

[Idolater]

No...we have laws...How is this not abundantly clear to you?

If you believe that "executing" children as young as six is somehow serving good then that is simply deranged. You also think it would be "just" to have a child as young as such stabbed to death if it befitted their "crime" as well, correct? What kind of mindset does it take to not consider that repugnant, repulsive and downright evil? To underline the point, what kind of person could actually bring themselves to "execute" a six year old child by stabbing it to death? A morally upstanding Christian or an outright psychopath devoid of morals and empathy?

...what you advocate is evil...you think God would endorse the execution of six year old children....

Deaf ears. If a man does not necessarily believe that all human beings possess irrevocable and absolute, inalienable human rights (iow if he's not a LIBERAL), then he's liable to do ANYTHING. These types of people have always been the most dangerous people who've ever lived. They don't all rise to power, but wherever fundamental, basic human rights are ignored and disregarded, good people are at risk and injustice prevails. Regardless of whether their reasoning is coz the Bible tells them so, or not. Deliberate rights violations are preceded by denying that the people possess rights in the first place.

 

[eider]

So a child isn't capable of those things too?
The Bible is EXTREMELY clear:.

But you quoted the Old Testament.
If you include the OT then you pick up ALL of the OT laws (except sacrificial/ceremonial).

But you won't...... I think.
So............ nah! :

 

[eider]

Absolutely to the former and interesting point on the latter.

What kind of person would apply for the position of executioner? What kind of person could stick a knife into a six year old child until they died? I'm no longer shocked by anything I hear on here but I'm still repulsed.

Yep.
What kind of person could stick a knife into anybody?
I once read on TOL that punishments must be painful or they are not a good deterrent, so the old Brit techniques for hanging quickly are no good !!!!

In the film Pierrepoint it was mentioned that the Brits killed quickly whilst other Allies didn't use our hanging techniques. Pierrepoint couldn't have stabbed anybody... and he was (reportedly) very proper in his treatment of bodies after execution. He later wrote that he did not think that Capital punishment had been beneficial at all.

Of course, some Sunni and Shia Islam countries do publicly execute, some with the blade, in line with OT laws, but I don't think anybody at all will want to acknowledge what they do. Strange.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yep.
What kind of person could stick a knife into anybody?
I once read on TOL that punishments must be painful or they are not a good deterrent, so the old Brit techniques for hanging quickly are no good !!!!

In the film Pierrepoint it was mentioned that the Brits killed quickly whilst other Allies didn't use our hanging techniques. Pierrepoint couldn't have stabbed anybody... and he was (reportedly) very proper in his treatment of bodies after execution. He later wrote that he did not think that Capital punishment had been beneficial at all.

Of course, some Sunni and Shia Islam countries do publicly execute, some with the blade, in line with OT laws, but I don't think anybody at all will want to acknowledge what they do. Strange.

Yep, what sort of personal requirements would be needed for employment as an executioner for killing people from man to child and how would they be advertised?

Only an absolute psychopath without even the smallest shred of humanity about them could remotely "qualify".

 

[eider]

Yep, what sort of personal requirements would be needed for employment as an executioner for killing people from man to child and how would they be advertised?

Only an absolute psychopath without even the smallest shred of humanity about them could remotely "qualify".

Dreadful....... literally.
Did we catch one of Hitler's executioners? I can't remember. The guillotine specialist, I'm thinking of.
But of course the guillotine was intended to be very humane, not that I could cope with being tied to the hinged bed and slid in to position. *shivers*

 

[JudgeRightly]

No. JR, a child isn't capable of such

Because you say so?

Because the evidence says otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

because they aren't developed enough to understand their actions in the same way as an adult.

What does that even mean, "not developed enough to understand their actions in the same way as an adult"?

That's why we have laws that acknowledge this.

You quote a lot of passages here and yet they're clearly in relation to adults, not children and certainly not six year olds.

Oh they're not?

Please point out to me where in these passages I've quoted that it makes any distinction between laws for children and laws for adults.

You won't find any.

How is this not abundantly clear to you?

Divine fallacy.

If you believe that "executing" children as young as six is somehow serving good then that is simply deranged.

Emotional appeal aside...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Were any of those children innocent?

You also think it would be "just" to have a child as young as such stabbed to death if it befitted their "crime" as well, correct?

Do you know what the term "Avenger of Blood" means, Arty?

What kind of mindset does it take to not consider that repugnant, repulsive and downright evil? To underline the point, what kind of person could actually bring themselves to "execute" a six year old child by stabbing it to death? A morally upstanding Christian or an outright psychopath devoid of morals and empathy?

More emotional appeal.

If God says to put the murderer to death,

You might want to think a bit more carefully before you throw these passages around because what you advocate is evil.

I quoted scripture, you have not quoted any.

And you call what I say evil?

Hypocrite. You don't even know what evil is anymore.

Evil is profaning God by killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live.

God says DO NOT kill the innocent.
God says DO NOT spare the guilty.

Violating EITHER of those commands is evil.

If you think God would endorse the execution of six year old children

God commanded:

Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. . . . Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:13,21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:13,21&version=NKJV​​​​​​​

So yes, if the child had committed a capital crime, God not only endorses, but commands that they be put to death.

then your only excuse for advocating such monstrosity is sheer ignorance because there's nothing Biblical to support it.

More emotional appeal.
​​​​​​​
Ignoring the scriptures which have been set before you is like covering your ears and yelling "blablablablablabla I can't hear you!"

It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Absolutely to the former and interesting point on the latter.

What kind of person would apply for the position of executioner? What kind of person could stick a knife into a six year old child until they died? I'm no longer shocked by anything I hear on here but I'm still repulsed.

The Avenger of Blood.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But you quoted the Old Testament.

I also quoted the New Testament. Or were you not paying attention again?

If you include the OT then you pick up ALL of the OT laws (except sacrificial/ceremonial).

But you won't...... I think.
So............ nah! :

Red herring.

We're talking about the death penalty for murder. Are you able to stay on topic?

 

[Rusha]

Oh goody, Captain Clueless and his dopey soundbite chimes in. For starters, nobody is arguing for abortion here and Rusha is as staunchly anti abortion as it gets.

Oh yay, another one who resorts to willful dishonesty ...

This thread is not about abortion.

CHILDREN need protected. Hence my position of why I am not for executing kids. Being unborn doesn’t make a child any less worthy of protection.

 

[ok doser]

Emotional appeal aside ...
​​​​​​

If you take away the emotional appeal his argument disappears. It's all he has. It's all about emotion.

That's why I say he's retarded - he CAN'T reason logically and factually - it's a foreign language to him. His facts ARE his emotions and his emotions ARE facts.

He "reasons" by considering his emotions as facts the way a child would.

His developmental progression is stunted, it's delayed, it's retarded at the level of a child.

All he brings to the discussion is a plaintive wail of "I don't like this!"

 

[ok doser]

If you include the OT then you pick up ALL of the OT laws ...

:mock: silly satan

 

[eider]

I also quoted the New Testament. Or were you not paying attention again?



Red herring.

We're talking about the death penalty for murder. Are you able to stay on topic?

Yep. Great!
So it's a secular conversation?

Nobody should be executed.
Too many innocents have been and would be executed for such a sentence to be acceptable.

Too many names come to mind.

In addition to the above, to execute children, those who killed in fear, those who were beyond reason, those who made mistakes ... that is totally wrong .....

​​​​​​No other offences from murder should be killed either.

Easy........

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yep. Great!
So it's a secular conversation?

Nobody should be executed.

God says otherwise.

God trumps eider, despite eider's pride.

Too many innocents have been and would be executed for such a sentence to be acceptable.

God says it's equally wrong to keep people alive who should not live as it is to kill people who should not die.

God trumps eider, despite eider's pride.

Too many names come to mind.

How about the deaths of those murdered by people who would have otherwise never committed murder had the death penalty been enforced properly?

In addition to the above, to execute children, those who killed in fear, those who were beyond reason, those who made mistakes ... that is totally wrong .....

​​​​​​No other offences from murder should be killed either.

Easy........

​​​​​​​You mean, like these kids?

​​​​​​​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

 

[eider]

God says otherwise.

Where?
Please leave the Old Testament out of this unless you want to discuss keeping all of its laws (less ceremonial/sacrificial).

God says it's equally wrong to keep people alive who should not live as it is to kill people who should not die.

Where?

God trumps eider, despite eider's pride
God trumps eider, despite eider's pride.

Eider is not proud. Eider just believes that the death penalty is wrong. It makes too many mistakes.
Are you?

How about the deaths of those murdered by people who would have otherwise never committed murder had the death penalty been enforced properly?

There may be some cases where a released murderer has killed again, or killed in prison. maybe we should focus more carefully upon their supervision.

You mean, like these kids?

Like anybody.

And to suggest that I'm proud because I disagree with the death penalty, especially for minors, is strange.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because you say so?

Because the evidence says otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Where does it say that any of them committed premeditated murder? A child is capable of killing, just as much as a venomous snake is. Neither are culpable of murder and as your feeble defence of a link stipulates, they weren't charged with such.

What does that even mean, "not developed enough to understand their actions in the same way as an adult"?

Seriously, do you need a 'join the dots' book or something? Is a five year old as physiologically developed as an adult? Is a baby capable of making moral decisions outside of crying to be fed or for having its nappy changed? Do the math here JR.

Oh they're not?

Please point out to me where in these passages I've quoted that it makes any distinction between laws for children and laws for adults.

You won't find any.

Oh, maybe they're meant for three year old's and zygotes as well? This is as lame as anything. It's downright obvious they're addressed to an adult audience and not children and certainly not ones six and under.

Divine fallacy.

Naive and pompous posturing.

Emotional appeal aside...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Were any of those children innocent?

Of murder? Yes. Even your own link doesn't support that.

Do you know what the term "Avenger of Blood" means, Arty?

It sure doesn't involve stabbing six year old children to death.

More emotional appeal.

If God says to put the murderer to death,

Six year old children aren't murderers, they're children. All you seem to have is this constant and feeble "emotional appeal" as if having an emotive reaction to the repulsive is something wrong in itself. Was Jesus being emotional when He was moved with compassion when witnessing the suffering of people? So, ya know what, you're damned right I have emotions where it comes to the suggestion that there's something "righteous" about putting kids to death and stabbing six year olds. It's downright evil beyond words. There is no way you can provide any Biblical support for such an abomination.

I quoted scripture, you have not quoted any.

And you call what I say evil?

Hypocrite. You don't even know what evil is anymore.

Anyone who advocates children as young as six being stabbed to death as "execution" is in no position to lecture anyone about evil or hypocrisy.

Evil is profaning God by killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live.

God says DO NOT kill the innocent.
God says DO NOT spare the guilty.

Violating EITHER of those commands is evil.

See above.

God commanded:

Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. . . . Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:13,21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

So yes, if the child had committed a capital crime, God not only endorses, but commands that they be put to death.



More emotional appeal.

Ignoring the scriptures which have been set before you is like covering your ears and yelling "blablablablablabla I can't hear you!"

It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Even the majority on the far religious right would balk at any suggestion of stabbing six year old children to death JR. You are out there and then some. You do not speak for God by any stretch.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Avenger of Blood.

No. The only type of person who could plunge a knife into a six year old child until they died would be a piece of absolute human scum.

Hey, call that emotive or whatever.

 

[Gary K]

No. The only type of person who could plunge a knife into a six year old child until they died would be a piece of absolute human scum.

Hey, call that emotive or whatever.

****rollseyes**** So, to take a child in the birth canal and cut it to pieces it is a good thing, but to execute a child for moral evil is evil. By the way, in Biblical times they stoned people to death. They didn't stab them to death.

That doesn't mean I advocate the death penalty for six year olds. But i cannot agree with you that children by the time they are 5 or 6 years old cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.. I was getting whipped at that age for standing up for what was moral, what was right and what was wrong. So don't tell me kids can't understand morality at that age.

Many little kids go through the same things I did. I have a step grandchild who is doing that now with her mother--her mother has lost her ever loving mind and is acting in morally evil ways. Her little girl understands that and will stop playing and go to an adult and ask them to pray with her for her mother. She's come to these conclusions on her own as she lives with her grandparents and her grandparents are not Christians, and don't pretend to be. She is 5 years old. No, she doesn't have a developed moral philosophy, but she knows what is right and what is wrong. To conflate the lack of a moral philosophy and understanding the difference between right and wrong when it happens is a big time logical fallacy.

By the way, that little girl understands the difference between right and wrong far better than you do. If you asked her if it was ok to kill a baby who was being born she would say no. It's bad. Really bad. But even a lot of adults lack the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.

 

[Arthur Brain]

****rollseyes**** So, to take a child in the birth canal and cut it to pieces it is a good thing, but to execute a child for moral evil is evil. By the way, in Biblical times they stoned people to death. They didn't stab them to death.

That doesn't mean I advocate the death penalty for six year olds. But i cannot agree with you that children by the time they are 5 or 6 years old cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.. I was getting whipped at that age for standing up for what was moral, what was right and what was wrong. So don't tell me kids can't understand morality at that age.

Many little kids go through the same things I did. I have a step grandchild who is doing that now with her mother--her mother has lost her ever loving mind and is acting in morally evil ways. Her little girl understands that and will stop playing and go to an adult and ask them to pray with her for her mother. She's come to these conclusions on her own as she lives with her grandparents and her grandparents are not Christians, and don't pretend to be. She is 5 years old. No, she doesn't have a developed moral philosophy, but she knows what is right and what is wrong. To conflate the lack of a moral philosophy and understanding the difference between right and wrong when it happens is a big time logical fallacy.

By the way, that little girl understands the difference between right and wrong far better than you do. If you asked her if it was ok to kill a baby who was being born she would say no. It's bad. Really bad. But even a lot of adults lack the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.

Hmm, for starters, nobody was endorsing that cutting a child to bits in a birth canal was a "good thing" here so thanks for that bit of predictable irrelevance...Oh, and stoning or stabbing a six year old to death? Abhorrent either way.

If you think that a six year old child has the same mental acuity as an adult then you are bonkers. You're in no position to talk about people knowing right from wrong although at least you're not despicable enough to support the likes of which some advocate on here.

 

[Gary K]

Hmm, for starters, nobody was endorsing that cutting a child to bits in a birth canal was a "good thing" here so thanks for that bit of predictable irrelevance...Oh, and stoning or stabbing a six year old to death? Abhorrent either way.

If you think that a six year old child has the same mental acuity as an adult then you are bonkers. You're in no position to talk about people knowing right from wrong although at least you're not despicable enough to support the likes of which some advocate on here.

If I misunderstand your position on abortion it's because I have never read a clearly worded definitive position from you. Plus, you support the political side of the aisle that pushes abortion at all times and in all circumstances. Your support those politicians is to me the same as supporting abortion.

I don't know where this idea of the death penalty for children comes from as it's a fallacy to say that God has laid down any such rule. I find nothing in the Bible to support such a thing. The closest to something like that is Leviticus 20:9 where God says anyone who curses their parents is to be stoned. But that is set in the middle of a passage that is addressing adult behaviors so to use it to apply to children is ignoring the entire context of the surrounding versest.

The Jews have a tradition that a child doesn't reach the age of accountability until age 12. Until that time their parents are held responsible for the actions of their children for until that time the parents stand as God to their children. After that age the child is responsible for whatever he does. That's the general idea behind the Bar Mitzvah.

And talk about misrepresentation, I never said a child has a fully developed moral code. I said they can, and do, understand the difference between right and wrong. That is a long way from having a fully developed moral code. But kids do have a good understanding of right and wrong. They know when they are wronged and other people are wronged. I've seen little kids stand up and fight one parent when that one wrongs their other parent. They recognize injustice when they see it or have a situation explained to them in language they can understand. And I've also seen adults who have almost zero recognition of right and wrong.