JPC: Death Penalty?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by daisycreek

if nothing else .. maybe a few would think twice before acting on their desires... if they knew the puishment would be to have their nads' whacked off... maybe not..

See our society has no claim in being superior to the Arabic Countries.

They catch a thief and cut off the hand(s).

A person runs from jail and they cut off the foot (or feet).

Do some thing perverted then cut off the head.

So if our "DaisyC" had her way then the USA would cut off body parts too.

It is just that the USA has a law of no cruel or unusual punishment that protects our society from the human cruelties that people want to do,

thank God, and thank our USA founders too.

[daisycreek]

doesnt the bible say an eye for an eye? a tooth for a tooth? a hand for a hand?

doesnt matter Iv'e heard that when the child molesters get to prison... that the prisoners take real good care of them!

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by daisycreek

doesnt the bible say an eye for an eye? a tooth for a tooth? a hand for a hand?

Yes, but a more correct wording is HERE.

Also I feel the need to add that an eye for an eye means ONLY an eye for an eye and ONLY a tooth for a tooth and ONLY a hand for a hand, etc.

So the rule never meant we could kill or brutalize the other person, but for one eye then ONLY one eye could be claimed and no more.

[jazz lady (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Yes, but a more correct wording is HERE.

Also I feel the need to add that an eye for an eye means ONLY an eye for an eye and ONLY a tooth for a tooth and ONLY a hand for a hand, etc.

So the rule never meant we could kill or brutalize the other person, but for one eye then ONLY one eye could be claimed and no more.

So if someone killed you, they'd only lose an eye? Hmm...might be worth it.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by jazz lady

So if someone killed you, they'd only lose an eye? Hmm...might be worth it.

I really do not understand the violent mentality of people - I just do not get it.

I suppose it does not matter to JL that Confucious did not make that quote in her signature, it was Lao Tzu.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Yes, but a more correct wording is HERE.

Also I feel the need to add that an eye for an eye means ONLY an eye for an eye and ONLY a tooth for a tooth and ONLY a hand for a hand, etc.

So, by your "logic", a non-supporting parent should be denied all support. You were non-supporting by choice, give back your support now, and it'll all be even!

[jazz lady (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I really do not understand the violent mentality of people - I just do not get it.

There's a lot of things in life you don't get, buckaroo.

I suppose it does not matter to JL that Confucious did not make that quote in her signature, it was Lao Tzu.

No, it matters not in the least to me WHO said it. The message is what I like and it has been variously contributed to both Confucius and Lao Tzu over the years. Go pander your supposed "correction" elsewhere because I could bring up a thousand sites that contribute it to Confucius.

My favorite explanation why neither one could have possibly said it.

[heavenly was]

Originally Posted by jazz lady

There's a lot of things in life you don't get, buckaroo.


No, it matters not in the least to me WHO said it. The message is what I like and it has been variously contributed to both Confucius and Lao Tzu over the years. Go pander your supposed "correction" elsewhere because I could bring up a thousand sites that contribute it to Confucius.

My favorite explanation why neither one could have possibly said it.

I wonder if either confucious or lao tzu had a pet pander bear?

[Ponytail]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I really do not understand the violent mentality of people - I just do not get it.

...

You create roid rage by simply existing. How's that for power?