• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |

Taking LSD on death row

Interesting..I had Friends when I was in prison who would gather Datura from the grounds and Eat it becoming fanatically demented lol..
 
Mitchi said:
Solid=Non-changing

It's just my experience. I could be wrong, offcourse.
It seems the "conflict" is what is called "free will". It is neurosis. Should I, or should I not...
An organism is writing this text. It is empty, It is capable. Like a tree or a cat

I don't think anyone is responsible. It's just how it is.
Click to expand...

Yeah I would probably agree that everyone has the potential for violence or murder or greed etc etc, and the background that the individual comes from will also have influence. But I think if you kill somebody, regardless of whether free will exists and you chose to kill – or you don't have free will and it was a product of whatever motive forces one chooses to believe are relevant to the situation – you still did fatal violence to somebody else. Now, killing is I believe justifiable under certain circumstances, for example, anybody who will not kill if their life is threatened may have an admirable spirit, but they'll also probably be dead as a doornail. Or combat. Or to avenge a seriously evil deed. But you're still doing the killing, the bloods on your hands, nobody else's. If you claim that it was inevitable or that you're not responsible, not only have you essentially given yourself license to kill in any situation at any time, but you're also a coward (not you personally, I'm speaking in general terms.

i did'nt write the murderer isn't violent. But I don't think there is a murderer in the first place.
Click to expand...

Hmm. If there's no murderer, is there a murder? If there's no murderer, is there anything else that takes its place? I'm just curious, I haven't heard somebody take this position before so it's interesting to me.

I haven't read much philosophy
Click to expand...

Right, me either. I kinda am wary of philosophical statements that are implied to be factual or that aren't backed up, but your position seems to be logically consistent, if a bit unusual to me.
 
morninggloryseed said:
If a criminal can be proven without reasonable doubt (and DNA) to have murdered, I'd be just fine with public humiliation and execution. Seems to result in less murders per capita in Arabia and other lands. Let me keep my guns and punish the killers and we would have a much better world.
Click to expand...

Yeah the middle east is a beacon of justice and humanity.
 
^Found using the quoted plus "death penalty" in google search:
The condemned are first administered pentobarbital, rendering the condemned unconscious. After the pentobarbital, the inmate is given pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the inmate’s muscles and stops breathing. Finally, the condemned receives a dosage of potassium chloride, which stops the heart.

Alabama, like other states with the death penalty, had used sodium thiopental until 2011, when Hospira, the manufacturer of the drug, stopped making it in the United States. Pentobarbital, which had been used by veterinarians and in physician-assisted suicide in some countries, was adopted as a replacement by most states.

The Death Penalty Information Center said the drug was used in 35 executions in the United States last year, including five in Alabama.

According to court filings, sodium thiapentol takes about 60 seconds to render an inmate unconscious. But Arthur’s attorneys, citing affidavits from two experts, argue that pentobarbital can take between 15 to 60 minutes to reach “maximum effect, which, in the context of a lethal injection, is an inmate’s anesthetization,” a brief filed by Arthur’s attorneys said.

With executions usually taking place within a half-hour attorneys for Arthur argue, that an inmate could feel the effects of the other two drugs before the pentobarbital takes hold.

“The Supreme Court recognizes that if an inmate is not unconscious, that will cause excruciating pain,” Han said. “If an inmate is not unconscious, (pancuronium bromide) is comparable to feeling like you’re being buried alive. The third drug, we’re told, is comparable to your veins and your heart being on fire.”
- See more at: http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/news-...tate-execution-procedure#sthash.CZMNglbY.dpuf
Click to expand...
source

Apparently as a society we demand hell be experienced before death as revenge "justice" in case hell doesn't exist. Disgusting ... especially when exonerations employing DNA evidence after judgment have proven that the system condemns innocents to such deaths in error. Anyone who endorses the death penalty is, in effect, claiming their simplistic "eye for an eye" notion of justice suffices as warrant for the collateral and unintentional murder of innocents by the state.
 
Last edited:
^I've never once seen it stated that way in a public debate. I don't know why, either. I don't see how that's not the case. The death penalty is very clearly morally indefensible as a social institution and I don't know why so many people persist in thinking it's debatable.
 
Deinonychus said:
Yeah I would probably agree that everyone has the potential for violence or murder or greed etc etc, and the background that the individual comes from will also have influence. But I think if you kill somebody, regardless of whether free will exists and you chose to kill – or you don't have free will and it was a product of whatever motive forces one chooses to believe are relevant to the situation – you still did fatal violence to somebody else. Now, killing is I believe justifiable under certain circumstances, for example, anybody who will not kill if their life is threatened may have an admirable spirit, but they'll also probably be dead as a doornail. Or combat. Or to avenge a seriously evil deed. But you're still doing the killing, the bloods on your hands, nobody else's. If you claim that it was inevitable or that you're not responsible, not only have you essentially given yourself license to kill in any situation at any time, but you're also a coward (not you personally, I'm speaking in general terms.



Hmm. If there's no murderer, is there a murder? If there's no murderer, is there anything else that takes its place? I'm just curious, I haven't heard somebody take this position before so it's interesting to me.



Right, me either. I kinda am wary of philosophical statements that are implied to be factual or that aren't backed up, but your position seems to be logically consistent, if a bit unusual to me.
Click to expand...

I'm just replying to what I feel is important. Let me know if I have missed something.

I will claim no responsibility. No guilt, no shame. Feelings of guilt and shame does exist though, their presence happens automatically. So, it is not possible for me to have a license to kill. I can not grant this to myself, because there is not anyone I can grant this to.
I can kill, under the "right" circumstances. Taking no responsibility doesn't mean I will kill anyone. It doesn't appeal to me (at all). Like it does not appeal to most other humans.

Yes, there is a murder happening, but the murderer is nowhere to be found. Like there is no thief in thieves (I understand the vast difference, but the point should be the same)

Yeah I was a bit quick
 
Oh yeah, killing someone because he killed someone. Then why don't killing that someone who killed that someone because he killed someone? Why killing a person is illegal if a normal citizen does it but it's legal if it's done by the government?
I'm not saying I'm against death penality or that you are alla wrong,i just ssay that it doesn't make sense at all.
If you kill a person because he did the same, then you are the murderer and you too deserve to die Isn't it?
Just my opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top