LEADING cause of schizophrenia, red? I think you’ll fine that studies have shown it only has this effect on those who are already prone to that particular illness, and even then it’s particularly rare. And you called me an addict too, which is kinda funny. By the way, I’m also an alcoholic because I have a few drinks every now and then, and when I get a headache I take Panadol, so I’m addicted to pain killers. Also, I watch TV and go on the computer, so I’m a multi-mediac. Besides, what’s worse, being a little hazy once in a while or being a KILLER? But we’re getting off topic here.

My point was simple. I find enjoyment in peaceful, friendly, loving activities. You find it in smelling dead bodies. You can’t see the irony in wanting to kill those because they kill? And you’re questioning MY ability to think straight?

But what would I know, right? I'm just a dreamy stoner who never hurt a fly. Maybe violence CAN be stopped with violence. I mean, throughout the entire history of the human race it hasn't worked yet, but I have a good feeling about tomorrow.

Make no mistake, red. ANYONE who wants to kill is a problem, and never a problem solver. Violence breeds violence. Maybe that’s why every country has an army, because we’re all caught in a loop! Would you not like to see the end of violence in this world? It starts with you.

Well, I guess I’m a dreamer.

But I’m not the only one!

These pages never cease to amaze me: the talk of death certainly boils the blood on some cirlces. And there seem to be some that find the concept of killing people very appealling indeed, if not exciting - I sense there is a lot of one handed typing going out there amongst those keen to get a few corpses happening.

And now there are those that seem to think having been on "active duty" or being a vicitm of violent crime makes some sort of difference. I have yet to be apprised of what being on "active service" does to add to the value ones ideas.

You dont need to have been a fightin' man to know or understand death, its meaning or its consequences.

And as for those feeling comfortable killing the enemies of "my people" - what constitutes and enemy? and who the hell might be "my people" do you have to pass a test? who is the judge? in these matters: or perhaps good soldiers dont ask questions they just do as they're told.

You took my position to an absurd length, yet you object when I returned the complement and did exactly the same to you.

I was trained by my country, Mr Spendocrat, to kill the external enemies of my people. And I do not see anything wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with killing the internal enemies of my people, especially those whose crimes are ghastly and who are preying upon their own people like a pack of cowardly wolves.

Your position is that of the morally pure dreamer, who wishes to display his moral and intellectual superiority over the brainless proletarian cretins. You do this by taking an absurd and unobtainable moral position over the subject of violence. Your position is in fact little more than an act of social climbing snobbery, with which you display your aspiration to join the ranks of the fashionable Brahmin caste. In this aim, you adopt the attitudes and parrot the slogans formulated for you by the peers from who’s ranks you seek acceptance. These attitudes are held up to you as the epitome of intellectual enlightenment, and they are the attitudes you must accept if you wish to be accepted as card carrying member of the trendy young things, who know so much better than everybody else how everything should be done.

Have you ever tried thinking for yourself? Has it ever occurred to you that some people may find it profitable and fun to pacify pacifists? Could I remind you that every civilisation who ever found Nirvana and went to sleep in the sun, usually woke up with some bastards foot on their neck? The history of the world, Mr Spendocrat, has always conformed to a very simple plan. He takes who has the power, he holds who can. If you think that you can keep psychopathic despots or even Ivan Milat at bay by sitting around the campfire with your friends and singing “Kumbaya” or “Imagine”, then I think that you may indeed have smoked a bit too much of that Mexican loco weed.

'You took my position to an absurd length, yet you object when I returned the complement and did exactly the same to you.'
Heh, yeah, fair call.

Hey, I admitted to being a dreamer, don't forget that! I'm just saying, I think human beings can be better than they are, and maybe will one day evolve intellectually and emotionally beyond the need for violence and war. I have no misconceptions that this is an incredibly ideal notion. I just think there is the potential in every human being to be peaceful, and if it were realised, we could stop the ridiculous, pointless, circular fighting and work towards more important things, like...curing cancer, searching outer space, I dunno, whatever. Anythings better than constant pointless death.

Look, for all I know you're right, violence could very well be an inherant and unescapable aspect of humanity. The problem I have is that some people, yourself included, seem to almost revel in it! Anyone who takes pleasure in killing is sick, proper sick.

I know I've quoted him several times now on this forum, but I feel this is appropriate:

'You know all that money we spend on military funding? Billions of dollars, right? How about instead we use that money to feed, clothe and educate the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one single human being excluded, then there would be no need for war, and we could explore space, both inner and outer, together, forever, in peace.'

- Bill Hicks

PS: I do so think for myself. Hmphf.

The topic under discussion, Mr Sneaky Peter, is capitol punishment. If you wish to cross swords with me on this subject, then have the courtesy of stating your own position and the reasons why you hold your particular view. Then we can face off on an equal footing.

Your tactics so far have been to simply barge in here claiming the high moral ground and barking a series of questions at me. This is designed to place me entirely upon the defensive and make me react to your initiative. To accept your post would mean that I am unable to effectively fight back. But I have seen these tactics before and I am way ahead of you. I know that when I answer your questions, you will simply throw more questions at me to keep me off balance, which will prevent me from making you articulate your own position. They are tactics which have probably worked very well for you before on people who are easily fooled, but they do not work on rednecks.

Your other tactic is to claim that I find the concept of killing other human beings “exciting” or “appealing”. Such tactics are called creating a ‘strawman argument”. This is where you take your opponents point of view to it’s most absurd lengths and claim that it is in fact his real position.

The valid point which I was making with Mr Spendocrat, Peter, is that many people who oppose capitol punishment hold a contradictory viewpoint. Many of these people see nothing wrong with soldiers executing their nations external enemies on the field of battle, yet by some application of doublethink, they regard the execution of their own societies most dangerous vermin to be an unpardonable sin. I do not make that distinction.

Mr Spendocrat. You share a vision with me that the human race must become a space faring civilization or face extinction. You and I only differ in how that can be achieved.

Your vision is that human beings must make some sort of intellectual decision to be entirely rational and simply stop being violent towards each other. When this important rational decision is finally made then great benefits will accrue. Vast expenditures will stop being misdirected towards unprofitable and wasteful ends and a new age of Aquarius will rule.

There is just one little thing wrong with that blissful vision, it presupposes that human beings are Star Trek Vulcans who can think entirely rationally. But human beings do not think rationally, they think emotionally. We can think rationally when we have to, but in order to understand human behaviour, it must be appreciated that it is primarily directed by powerful human emotional needs. If you do not understand that, then I would deduce that your social skills are very poor.

Your logic is a bit like saying that the obvious way to prevent world overpopulation is for boys and girls to stop lusting after each others bodies and for both groups to stop screwing each other. While such a decision would be entirely logical, it is unlikely to gain any triumphant popular support. But if you want to think logically, here is a bit of logic for you.

The proportion of any population which has engages in serious criminal behaviour is around 5% of the population. That 5% is primarily responsible for Australia’s incredible $32 billion dollar per annum crime bill. That is $32 billion dollars misdirected from education, vital infrastructure and scientific research. But even within that 5%, most are once only offenders or peripheral players. Most serious crime is the work of a tiny fraction of that 5%. The cost of incarcerating these serious offenders works out at $1000 dollars a day. Rope is $2 dollars a metre