President Hu and the Death Penalty

Your humanity is overwhelming.
With that logic we can justify many of history's atrocities and war crimes.
 
Is it not true? If we worried about a select group of people instead of the nation as a whole, we would be nowhere(we as the United States). George Washington warned us against such things in his Farewell Address. Think about it, if we had worried about a particular section eg southern farmers against northern factories, instead of preserving the Union as a whole, we would have an entirely different history book...
 
I whole-heartedly disagree with your logic.

Were others to follow this line of thinking there would be no "Leave no man behind".

We wouldn't send PJ's and CSARs in behind enemy lines to retrieve downed pilots, risking teams and helo's all for one man.
 
Last edited:
OK. I guess sectionalism is alive and well in the United States and we can just put President Washington's views in the toilet...http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/20/chinese_organ_selling/


I realized I didnt have an article...By the way, it does say that the Chinese did recieve prior permission from the prisoners and only a few times were the organs acctually used. Who knows, the article also says that the latter is a lie...biased report? I dunno...
 
Permission at gun point is hardly voluntary. I will hunt up the SCMP article and scan it for you if the missus hasn't "reorganised" my pile at the house. The cat is out of the bag here and the CCP is scrambling to spin the story... I suggest reading with hip-waders on.
:)
 
I can NOT believe the garbage I have been reading on this issue ... "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few" ... this line has been used to excuse MORE out-and-out crimes against humanity than any other line in history.

The sanctity of life has been the hallmark of an enlightened society since the first doctor placed the welfare of the patient above his own welfare.

The fact that most Chinese have no "real" control over their own lives does NOT make it OK for the government to "decide" to harvest the organs of ANY prisoner that has NOT authorized the surgical removal after death. Anything else IS a crime against humanity no matter the twisted logic you use to excuse it. The population density has NO place in this decision nor does it excuse this practice.

As a combat veteran, I place the highest value on human life and to imagine that a government can be so guilty of the slaughter and butchery of it's citizens just to harvest organs, is on a par with the experiments carried out against Jewish prisoners by the Nazis during the holocaust.

Shame on you - I expected better of a group of civilized individuals. This IS NOT the dark ages.
 
Democracy and liberalism are the opposite than this "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few"-kind of vision. Each and every single individual bears the right to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
 
Last edited:
Then why do we vote? If one President or the other will always recieve the majority vote, whats the point of voting? Majority rules is a popular concept in democracy.Its how we choose most of our officials. POTUS,Congress...basically our government is ran by the idea that the majority does rule...
 
Of course. Majority rules, but minorities are protected and their interests not crushed by the government. Besides, life, freedoms and the habeas corpus are not subject to majority rule. In a liberaldemocratic country these are protected by the Constitution.
 
Hoo-ah! Besides the US is not a democracy, we're a republic with an elitist system that chooses the President called the electoral college. The popular vote is worthless and does NOT matter. Sorry but the founding fathers believed the common man to be too ignorant to know what was best for him in issues of governance but also recognised that owing to the arguments they laid forth as reason for the revolution that they still had to provide at least the appearance to the common man that he had some say. And voile, I give you the United States of America. Where the individuality of each and every man is treasured and protected even from himself.
 
I can see Ill be argued against no matter what.considering that the popular vote being useless is what i meant by US voting...adios muchachos.
 
I don't fully agree with you there. Republic, instead of democracy, was the name the Fathers gave to the American system only because back then "democracy" referred to pure democracies (not parliamentary systems, but systems where everyone had a say in person). "Republic" would mean representative systems. In the rest of the world though the meaning of the term evolved and today's liberaldemocracies are what the Fathers would mean by "Republics". From this point of view, the US is not different than Italy is. I know about the electoral college (Bush had less votes than Gore in 2000 but still won the presidency), but hey the right had technically received more votes in 1996 overhere and still the left governed for 5 years. It had to do with our electoral system.
Other than that, the US today is a liberaldemocracy. So is the rest of the free world. It sometimes happens that one candidate gets some more votes than the other guy and still the other guy wins, but that's due to the electoral system of the country and has nothing to do with the US being less of a democracy. Plus, I believe around 90% of the times the real opinion of the people matched the technical outcome.
But I know you love to call yourself a Republic and I generously forgive you for that :roll:.
 
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."
 
I think we should take useful organs of all dead people withou asking. No wait, we should tell them "If you don't want us to transplant your organs, say something."However, there should be no death penalty.
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Needs of the many still outweigh the needs of the few.
Click to expand...
The needs of the me outweigh the needs of the few.
bulldogg said:
I whole-heartedly disagree with your logic.

Were others to follow this line of thinking there would be no "Leave no man behind".

We wouldn't send PJ's and CSARs in behind enemy lines to retrieve downed pilots, risking teams and helo's all for one man.
Click to expand...
Indee. More importantly, Hollywood wouldn't be able to make movies about heroic rescues such as these.
bulldogg said:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."
Click to expand...

Haha.
 
Last edited:
I find nothing humourous in my post. Pray tell what the :cen: you think is so funny punk? Men and women, far better than you, have died for that flag and what it stands for. It is only a shame we are having this conversation via a medium which does not lend itself to talking to you face to face. I personally would like to see the look in your eye when you say crap like that.
 
bulldogg said:
I find nothing humourous in my post. Pray tell what the :cen: you think is so funny punk? Men and women, far better than you, have died for that flag and what it stands for. It is only a shame we are having this conversation via a medium which does not lend itself to talking to you face to face. I personally would like to see the look in your eye when you say crap like that.
Click to expand...
I thought that this :cens: dumb-s h i t was already banned for his :cens: anti-everything rhetoric.
 
bulldogg said:
I find nothing humourous in my post. Pray tell what the :cen: you think is so funny punk? Men and women, far better than you, have died for that flag and what it stands for. It is only a shame we are having this conversation via a medium which does not lend itself to talking to you face to face. I personally would like to see the look in your eye when you say crap like that.
Click to expand...
I find nothing enraging about my post. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top