Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 114

Thread: Chester Bennington dead at 41

  1. #46

    Default

    Get a vasectomy then.

  2. The Following User High Fived Slick For This Post:


  3. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    This guy owed it to his kids to be strong....he was their father. If someone has that great of mental illness, I would suggest not bringing in another life into this world.
    I have issues with depression - I will never have kids because of this wonderful argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  4. The Following User High Fived Poet For This Post:


  5. #48

    Default

    Don't kill yourself - subjectively be mentally stronger. And snip your dick in anticipation of issues resurfacing in your life.

    To the parents in the thread - remove the visceral reactions for a second.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  6. The Following User High Fived Poet For This Post:


  7. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Taysom Hill
    Posts
    40,850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
    So because other areas of life are complicated we must pick arbitrary, or should pick arbitrary, areas to be black and white? So if a 14 year old, whom experts can agree don't fully understand their actions, kills someone like that they should be killed? If someone is not in control of their actions because they're mentally ill, like PTSD or schizophrenic, they should die? You can hold that opinion, but it's not well-reasoned and flies in the face of...intelligence.

    I suppose I should ask you to justify your opinion on suicide based on logic, scholarship, etc. But I don't think you will.

    Cheer for the Dodgers? Impeccable taste. Probably have a splendid beard and kind hazel eyes.

    I sort of loathe you right now. Which means our bromance is strong.
    According to my own bias, my reasoning is air tight. Take someone else's life? You don't get to do that, for any reason, ever. It's not justifiable under any circumstances. If you're incapable of understanding that - then you don't belong on earth as part of the human race. Give me the intelligent argument for why we should preserve the schizophrenic murderer's life.

    My logical reasoning on suicide is that no bond in life is more important or profound than parent-child. Parents dictate so many of their child's determining factors for success in life - http://www.businessinsider.com/paren...quality-2014-1... You are essentially entering into a contract with that child when you bring them into the world that you will set them up for success... If you shirk that responsibility - then you are selfish.

    I just wanted to hurt you with the Dodgers comment. Vin Scully blows that theory out of the water.

  8. The Following User High Fived Buff For This Post:


  9. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    A galaxy far far away
    Adopted Bronco:
    Rey
    Posts
    21,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
    Don't kill yourself - subjectively be mentally stronger. And snip your dick in anticipation of issues resurfacing in your life. To the parents in the thread - remove the visceral reactions for a second.
    Lol, welcome back king.

  10. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Wash.
    Adopted Bronco:
    Always King87
    Posts
    57,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
    I have issues with depression - I will never have kids because of this wonderful argument.
    Don't know what to tell you. I'm a damn good Dad, and I always put my family first. We all have demons, but I didn't and don't let them control me, because I have a responsibility to be a good family man....husband and father.

    I'm glad to see you're seeking help

  11. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    37,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
    I have issues with depression - I will never have kids because of this wonderful argument.
    If you have any inkling that you would commit suicide, you probably shouldn't have kids. If you would seek help if you ever got that deep in your depression, proceed with caution. Personal responsibility.

  12. The Following 2 Users High Fived GEM For This Post:


  13. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Mister Cobble
    Posts
    53,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    According to my own bias, my reasoning is air tight. Take someone else's life? You don't get to do that, for any reason, ever. It's not justifiable under any circumstances. If you're incapable of understanding that - then you don't belong on earth as part of the human race. Give me the intelligent argument for why we should preserve the schizophrenic murderer's life.

    My logical reasoning on suicide is that no bond in life is more important or profound than parent-child. Parents dictate so many of their child's determining factors for success in life - http://www.businessinsider.com/paren...quality-2014-1... You are essentially entering into a contract with that child when you bring them into the world that you will set them up for success... If you shirk that responsibility - then you are selfish.

    I just wanted to hurt you with the Dodgers comment. Vin Scully blows that theory out of the water.
    What if someone murders your kids right in front of your face, so you know 100% for sure they did it, and out of rage you kill them. They weren't threatening your life at the time, so it's not self-defense, you did it 100% as retribution for killing your kids. Other than killing your kids' killer in retaliation, you have otherwise been a 100% model citizen for your entire life, not so much as a parking ticket.

    Is that person also a worthless person who no longer deserves to live?

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Taysom Hill
    Posts
    40,850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoWave View Post
    What if someone murders your kids right in front of your face, so you know 100% for sure they did it, and out of rage you kill them. They weren't threatening your life at the time, so it's not self-defense, you did it 100% as retribution for killing your kids. Other than killing your kids' killer in retaliation, you have otherwise been a 100% model citizen for your entire life, not so much as a parking ticket.

    Is that person also a worthless person who no longer deserves to live?
    This is a good amendment to the rule. This person can live. What other exceptions do you have?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Mister Cobble
    Posts
    53,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    This is a good amendment to the rule. This person can live. What other exceptions do you have?
    I mostly just wanted to poke a hole in your argument. I could probably come up with others, but I consider my mission successfully accomplished here.

  16. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    According to my own bias, my reasoning is air tight. Take someone else's life? You don't get to do that, for any reason, ever. It's not justifiable under any circumstances. If you're incapable of understanding that - then you don't belong on earth as part of the human race. Give me the intelligent argument for why we should preserve the schizophrenic murderer's life.

    My logical reasoning on suicide is that no bond in life is more important or profound than parent-child. Parents dictate so many of their child's determining factors for success in life - http://www.businessinsider.com/paren...quality-2014-1... You are essentially entering into a contract with that child when you bring them into the world that you will set them up for success... If you shirk that responsibility - then you are selfish.

    I just wanted to hurt you with the Dodgers comment. Vin Scully blows that theory out of the water.
    No, your reasoning is stupid. Like, we're friends, so I feel comfortably telling you that you logic is monumentally stupid, and you should read more books to make up for that post, haha.

    In law, and I'm not making a legal argument, it's just a nice reference point, there's the mens rea and actus rea. Mens rea is 'meant' or intent. Actus rea is act, or action. If a child, kills someone, and they scientifically cannot be in actual knowledge of their actions (and this is an actual thing so please don't try to argue against it because if you make me get the ******* sources out I will and I'll be grumpy) how could they have meant it? A 14 year old on the baseball diamond gets into a fight with someone and hits them in the face with a bat. The person dies. Yeah, the 14 can definitely never change, regardless of their basic child brain, so kill them. That's your argument, and the logic doesn't follow.

    The schizophrenic murderer, let's call him..Buff. So Buff can't get his medication (this is America, this is not uncommon) and his issues are so strong and brutal that being untreated he essentially is in a state of being where he doesn't know what's real anymore. Buff is walking the streets, and can't really function. Not function in the 'go to work on time way,' but the 'that's a bus and not a monster that wants to kill me' sort of way. In a state of confusion or rage he starts hitting people, the scenario doesn't matter.

    Now, is that Buff? Is that Buff, whom, in a normal state, might drink absurdly stupid beverages, refuse to get his field-goaled sized gap fixed, or even dumber become friends with an arrogant ass so pompous as to refer to himself as a King via online message board? No, that Buff, while an idiot who roots for a shitty college team and probably cries after sex, is not the same guy who thought the bus was a dragon.

    So when execution date comes, and Buff, in his normal state because the USSC requires him to get his meds, gets put to death, who are you punishing? The actual guy who basically wasn't there, or the crazed murderer who thought he was running from a dragon and knocked someone over onto the curb. The actual logical issue with your theory is that the 'intention' of knocking someone over in a mentally handicapped state should act as an actual intention regardless of the fact it came from someone who's a nutter.

    The 14's understanding of their actions is scientifically disputed. It's why you can't execute someone who is mentally handicapped, albeit Florida has a history of trying. When that recently went to the SCOTUS the SCOTUS was hit with so many scientific studies about the mental state of of people that they, as conservative as the bench was (not politically, per se, but in terms of jurisprudence analysis) was like 'nope, can't do that. oh shit ****'.

    So my response is as follows: Go Dodgers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  17. The Following User High Fived Poet For This Post:


  18. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GEM View Post
    If you have any inkling that you would commit suicide, you probably shouldn't have kids. If you would seek help if you ever got that deep in your depression, proceed with caution. Personal responsibility.
    I've been suicidal in the past so I should never have kids. It's an interesting ethical argument.

    So what happens if I'm stable and fine - and then everything hits the fan twelve years later? Specifics don't matter - we can draw up hypothetical, all day long.

    My second response is this - do you guys have that thought now, after having kids, and being more seasoned in the world. Or did that occur to before kids? Did you guys, if you ever had issues, think about not having kids while having those issues?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  19. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Mister Cobble
    Posts
    53,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
    No, your reasoning is stupid. Like, we're friends, so I feel comfortably telling you that you logic is monumentally stupid, and you should read more books to make up for that post, haha.

    In law, and I'm not making a legal argument, it's just a nice reference point, there's the mens rea and actus rea. Mens rea is 'meant' or intent. Actus rea is act, or action. If a child, kills someone, and they scientifically cannot be in actual knowledge of their actions (and this is an actual thing so please don't try to argue against it because if you make me get the ******* sources out I will and I'll be grumpy) how could they have meant it? A 14 year old on the baseball diamond gets into a fight with someone and hits them in the face with a bat. The person dies. Yeah, the 14 can definitely never change, regardless of their basic child brain, so kill them. That's your argument, and the logic doesn't follow.

    The schizophrenic murderer, let's call him..Buff. So Buff can't get his medication (this is America, this is not uncommon) and his issues are so strong and brutal that being untreated he essentially is in a state of being where he doesn't know what's real anymore. Buff is walking the streets, and can't really function. Not function in the 'go to work on time way,' but the 'that's a bus and not a monster that wants to kill me' sort of way. In a state of confusion or rage he starts hitting people, the scenario doesn't matter.

    Now, is that Buff? Is that Buff, whom, in a normal state, might drink absurdly stupid beverages, refuse to get his field-goaled sized gap fixed, or even dumber become friends with an arrogant ass so pompous as to refer to himself as a King via online message board? No, that Buff, while an idiot who roots for a shitty college team and probably cries after sex, is not the same guy who thought the bus was a dragon.

    So when execution date comes, and Buff, in his normal state because the USSC requires him to get his meds, gets put to death, who are you punishing? The actual guy who basically wasn't there, or the crazed murderer who thought he was running from a dragon and knocked someone over onto the curb. The actual logical issue with your theory is that the 'intention' of knocking someone over in a mentally handicapped state should act as an actual intention regardless of the fact it came from someone who's a nutter.

    The 14's understanding of their actions is scientifically disputed. It's why you can't execute someone who is mentally handicapped, albeit Florida has a history of trying. When that recently went to the SCOTUS the SCOTUS was hit with so many scientific studies about the mental state of of people that they, as conservative as the bench was (not politically, per se, but in terms of jurisprudence analysis) was like 'nope, can't do that. oh shit ****'.

    So my response is as follows: Go Dodgers.
    King, in your history of many brilliant posts on this board, this one might actually be my favorite.

  20. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis View Post
    Lol, welcome back king.
    I'm mad at you, but I'm back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
    Y’all know I’m an OL Groupie but I think Jeudy is going to be worth missing out on a T, knock on wood.

  21. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Taysom Hill
    Posts
    40,850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Von Kinger View Post
    No, your reasoning is stupid. Like, we're friends, so I feel comfortably telling you that you logic is monumentally stupid, and you should read more books to make up for that post, haha.

    In law, and I'm not making a legal argument, it's just a nice reference point, there's the mens rea and actus rea. Mens rea is 'meant' or intent. Actus rea is act, or action. If a child, kills someone, and they scientifically cannot be in actual knowledge of their actions (and this is an actual thing so please don't try to argue against it because if you make me get the ******* sources out I will and I'll be grumpy) how could they have meant it? A 14 year old on the baseball diamond gets into a fight with someone and hits them in the face with a bat. The person dies. Yeah, the 14 can definitely never change, regardless of their basic child brain, so kill them. That's your argument, and the logic doesn't follow.

    The schizophrenic murderer, let's call him..Buff. So Buff can't get his medication (this is America, this is not uncommon) and his issues are so strong and brutal that being untreated he essentially is in a state of being where he doesn't know what's real anymore. Buff is walking the streets, and can't really function. Not function in the 'go to work on time way,' but the 'that's a bus and not a monster that wants to kill me' sort of way. In a state of confusion or rage he starts hitting people, the scenario doesn't matter.

    Now, is that Buff? Is that Buff, whom, in a normal state, might drink absurdly stupid beverages, refuse to get his field-goaled sized gap fixed, or even dumber become friends with an arrogant ass so pompous as to refer to himself as a King via online message board? No, that Buff, while an idiot who roots for a shitty college team and probably cries after sex, is not the same guy who thought the bus was a dragon.

    So when execution date comes, and Buff, in his normal state because the USSC requires him to get his meds, gets put to death, who are you punishing? The actual guy who basically wasn't there, or the crazed murderer who thought he was running from a dragon and knocked someone over onto the curb. The actual logical issue with your theory is that the 'intention' of knocking someone over in a mentally handicapped state should act as an actual intention regardless of the fact it came from someone who's a nutter.

    The 14's understanding of their actions is scientifically disputed. It's why you can't execute someone who is mentally handicapped, albeit Florida has a history of trying. When that recently went to the SCOTUS the SCOTUS was hit with so many scientific studies about the mental state of of people that they, as conservative as the bench was (not politically, per se, but in terms of jurisprudence analysis) was like 'nope, can't do that. oh shit ****'.

    So my response is as follows: Go Dodgers.
    You've kind of made my point for me here that legally we like to introduce all of these gray areas - and that's probably the right thing to do when trying to develop a just legal system... But MY point is that at the end of the day none of that really matters when a family loses a loved one because another person deliberately killed them.

    I said "intentionally" murders someone... So the baseball bat example doesn't apply. I'm talking about intentionality. If you intentionally kill someone - that is never excusable and MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT I AM UNMOVED BY THE MURDERER'S MENTAL COMPETENCY OR THEIR MOTIVATION FOR COMMITTING THE MURDER. Completely unmoved. Just kill them already as they no longer deserve to breathe my air.

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group