Stanhope weighs in on death penalty debate

OK Woody. Seeing as you’re obviously the resident professor, kindly answer one of my earlier questions. And truthfully please.

Let’s say that Indonesia is fed up with the likes of Schapelle Corby, the Bali 9 etc. etc. and feels that Australia doesn’t do enough to combat these type of people. It now insists that we must impose a death penalty.

What would you say? Yes or No??

We’re waiting….

You can be either for the death penalty (for murderers etc), or against it (in all cases). You can’t be against the death penalty within Australia, and for Australians overseas like the Bali 9, but yet support the death penalty for Foreigners who harm australians.

Of course little Johnny H isn’t actually that conflicted – really he supports the death peanly for Australians as well – that’s why he allowed the Bali 9 to be dobbed in. His pretence that he is generally anti the death penalty is the hypocritical part.

Woody, I think you’re missing the point here. If you think that the death penalty should be banned in, for example, Indonesia then that’s fine. That’s your opinion. I dont like a lot of things that go on in some other countries either. But the fact of the matter is this. We don’t govern those countries, we aren’t a part of those countries. Therefore, it’s not our business to tell them what they should or should not be doing. Can you grasp that??
How would you react if Indonesia turned around to us and said that we needed to impose a death penalty?? Or India suddenly pipes up and demands that we become a Hindu state??
You’d tell them to get stuffed wouldn’t you? So what’s the difference??

Also Woody, why is it that people, such as yourself, must resort to petty name calling? Is it because you are incapable of coming up with a valid argument?

I’m getting confused by the woody one.

He seems to be saying we can’t “tell” other countries what they can and can’t do.

Which contradicts what our local mayor froths about instead of fixing potholes – which is what he was elected for.

Woody states he is in favour of the filthy murdering Bali bomber scums being released which is where we tend to have differing opinions.

Firing squad is right. Release is wrong.

the only good thing about the death penalty in the bali bombers case is that they are adamant they are going to paradise – which translated means that they are probably infact scared sh*tless – I would love to see the look in their eyes as they die when they realise that there is no god and they murdered a bunch of people based on text which is very obviously garbage.

Although I would much prefer to see them studied in science labs for the rest of their lives. Where the fck is allah now bitches!!

Tell us, do you think the filthy murdering scum Bali bombers deserve release?

Absolutely. What bloody right have we got telling other countries whether or not they should release terrorists for Christ’s sake?? It’s none of Australia’s (or anyone else’s) business. We need to butt out of it!

Frothing at the mouth, and visibly shaking with rage, Woody managed to splutter the following:

I like that you sit at home thinking about my purty mouth, Ralph. Believe me, I feel no rage, nor even mild surprise, that people like you, SmallDickBigDave and Mr Toad can’t grasp even basic logical concepts.

Now, were you actually going to try to defend absolute relativism? You’ve had plenty of time to read about it – or hasn’t Andrew Dolt had time to cover it? If you think that was an “elaborate statement”, you’re even slower than I thought. Here, I’ll dumb it down for you:

If you think that what happens in other countries is OK purely because it happens in other countries, and if you think something happening in another country places it beyond scrutiny or criticism by people who don’t live there, then you can’t have a position about heinous, fucked-up shit like slavery, or genital mutilation of young girls, or suicide bombers, because it’s none of our business. If you’re an absolute relativist, you sound like BigDave, and you say retarded things like:

What bloody right have we got telling other countries whether or not they should gas Jews for Christ’s sake?? It’s none of Australia’s (or anyone else’s) business. We need to butt out of it!

What bloody right have we got telling other countries whether or not they should fly planes into buildings for Christ’s sake?? It’s none of Australia’s (or anyone else’s) business. We need to butt out of it!

What bloody right have we got telling other countries whether or not they should conscript children for Christ’s sake?? It’s none of Australia’s (or anyone else’s) business. We need to butt out of it!

I’m waiting. Let’s hear your elegant defence of a mode of thought that everybody with half a brain has known is fatally flawed since Socrates made Protagoras his bitch over two thousands years ago.

Frothing at the mouth, and visibly shaking with rage, Woody managed to splutter the following:

That’s called “absolute relativism”, and it’s a line of “reasoning” (I use the term loosely) typically used by simpletons who are attracted by its superficial veil of internal consistency and because it absolves them of any responsibiity for anything.

Such elaborate statements are also known as rhetoric, which is usually employed by left-wing simpletons to make innocuous arguments sound intricate and complex.

Fix the hospitals and roads, Stanhope.

Booma

“Nohope wasn’t elected by anyone, bar you perhaps, to voice opinions on national and international affairs, much as though he thinks otherwise.”

The Toad is right. He was not elected for his national and international opinions. He is CM of the ACT – a glorified mayor who should deal with local issues instead of Howard-esque diversions away from doing his real job

Well said Mr Evil.

stanhope should just shut his big fat useless mouth and get on with allegedly governing this territory. Of which he is doing a lousy job anyway.

It’s interesting that Stanhope always tries to play the big man on the world stage whenever there are major problems in his local area that he really should be paying attention to instead e.g. over stretched resources in Canberra’s Hospitals!

If he cares so much about these out-of-ACT issues, well he should resign his position in the ACT Govt and go and work for Amnesty, or some other bleeding heart organisation.

Barking Toad you might like to think that no one elected Stanhope to represent them, but the truth is that he won the first majority government in the history of the legislative assembly, so in fact heaps of people did vote for him.

You are clearly in the minority opinion, no matter how you might like to pretend otherwise.

Stanhope’s position, and that of Robert McLelland, is intellectually unassailable. If we think the death penalty is wrong, it is wrong for it to be inflicted on anyone, whether she is an Australian drug dealer or an Indonesian zealot who resorts to terrorism. If we say the death penalty is not fine, except for a few offences, we are really getting into hair splitting. The death penalty is inhumane, it doesn’t work, it operates disproportionately, it is logical nonsense (we, as a society show that we detest murder by …. committing murder) and those who suffer most are the families of the convict. There may be a brief window of relief for the families of the victim but, at some point, they will wake in the middle of the night and ask why they endorsed the killing of a healthy human.

(I agree, however, with anyone who says that terrorists create enormous incarceration problems because of the risk that their colleagues will try to bargain them out).

In the present case, the WedgeMeister applied the wedge and Kruddy buckled. Stanhope does, by the way, have a relevant role – I recall that he declined to provide evidence to assist the Chinese prosecution of an alleged murderer unless and until the death penalty was excluded.

It is strange behaviour for a labor premier to go against the opinion of the leader of the labor party in the lead up to the election though.

I think you’re wrong barking toad. By the sounds of Woody, he’s nowhere near capable of an arts degree. Perhaps the construction of a Big Mac?

You sound like you’ve done something relevant to life like an arts degree woody.

Nohope wasn’t elected by anyone, bar you perhaps, to voice opinions on national and international affairs, much as though he thinks otherwise.

Tell us, do you think the filthy murdering scum Bali bombers deserve release?

What bloody right have we got telling other countries whether or not they should have a death penalty for Christ’s sake??

That’s called “absolute relativism”, and it’s a line of “reasoning” (I use the term loosely) typically used by simpletons who are attracted by its superficial veil of internal consistency and because it absolves them of any responsibiity for anything. I could explain why it’s a fallacy, but I’d be wasting my time. Google it if you care, or go back to school.

What bloody right have we got telling other countries whether or not they should have a death penalty for Christ’s sake?? It’s none of Australia’s (or anyone else’s) business. We need to butt out of it!
Secondly, it wouldn’t be a bad thing if we had it here. It might do us all a favour getting rid of the scum. But unfortunately, it’ll never happen. Too many lefties and soft arses with soft arse attitudes…

I’m not proud of him.

While it’s great that Mr Stanhope has an opinion on the issue, what it has to do with him is another matter. If he wishes to form policies on this issue he should resign from the Legislative Assembly (and do the ACT a favour) and run for the upcoming federal election. Until then his opinion on the issue is worth no more than yours or mine.

His focus would be better spent on local issues rather on using his position to voice his own personal issues.

Silly me. I thought my vote was to elect the Assembly, a unicameral legislature, and that its role is to make laws that are binding on all citizens of the Territory – laws about health, education, transport, licensing, housing, human rights, property, crime, trade, elections…

I think the leader of an elected government having an opinion about something as serious as the death penalty is a far cry from “running our lives”, but then you are prone to histrionic exaggeration, aren’t you Mr Toad?

No woody.

We elect a local council to administer the ACT. Fixing roads etc.

Not to run our lives – much as though that’s what the hippies want

So where do I get a job as ACT hangman?

he doesn’t abuse his position and try to make it the policy of the ACT

I thought that was a Chief Minister’s primary function – setting policy for the Territory they were elected to lead.

I really don’t see much point myself. The ACT doesn’t have a death penalty and, if it ever tried to introduce one we would be overridden by the Feds anyway. Even if that didn’t stop us, the incompetence of this government would ensure that the rope would unravel, the trap-door wouldn’t spring and then Stanhope & co would spend two million dollars of our money hiring lawyers to try and shut down the inquiry held to find out what went wrong.

Anyway, who would we top? David Eastman? We couldn’t afford the never-ending legal stoush.

Ah, but buried in an unclean meat menas burning foreevr in hell or something.

It’s 72 virgins booma. With little boys as an option.

I don’t mind nohope saying what his convictions are – as long as he doesn’t abuse his position and try to make it the policy of the ACT. He can say what he likes as an individual offering a personal opinion.

In this particular case he’s only repeating the ALP mantra. That’s where krudd made a dick of himself.

Personally, I hope Indonesia telecasts the firing squad offing the vile Bali murderers.

It kind of screws up the plan better if you don’t execute them, Mutley. No virgins in prison. Not for long, anyway.

Islamic terrorists should be executed and buried with a slice of bacon stuffed in their mouth. That’s stop them getting their 40 virgins!

I think that no one has the right to take the life of another, whether it be a mass murder terrorist act or a state sanctioned execution.

To me, it sends a stronger message to say that murder is wrong in all circumstances.

Besides, I think that rotting in prison for the term of your natural life is worse punishment than execution, especially when (in the case of extremist Islamic terrorists for example) execution means they will be championed as martyrs by supporters of their terrible cause.

Pity he didn’t feel it was so important to stand up and be counted on the issue of open and transparent government!

Stanhope – go to Federal Politics, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I agree with you, though.