Lindsay Clancy -Mother of 3 kills her kids during psychotic episode

[Monster Energy]

[Ulax]

3 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

Society is lost. Leftists have successfully ruined it. No conservative who wasn’t intimidated would ever say that the woman who murdered her kids is innocent of murdering them. So yes, this absolutely is a political issue.

People are weak and corruptible, and that’s the problem with a system that relies on people to make decisions, whether through voting or serving on juries. Unfortunately, there’s no better alternative, and this kind of corruption and degradation of society may be inevitable.

 

The only support he’d receive would be hundreds of letters from women wanting to marry him.

90% of the commentary on both sides of this issue is dumb. The left more dumb though. Especially the ones who claim she didn't even do the killing at all

[Monster Energy]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

90% of the commentary on both sides of this issue is dumb. The left more dumb though. Especially the ones who claim she didn't even do the killing at all

Lol

[Ulax]

Was not expecting Yeti to be rocking a Hipster aesthetic

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Basman said:

Corrupt judges are a problem regardless if you have the death penalty or not. 

Getting caught in 4k murderizing is an acceptable standard for capital I think. There's no doubt that Breivik or most school shooters aren't guilty. We aren't gaining anything by treating the unacceptable with kid gloves.

The point is that even the potential of corruption in the case of capital punishment is so bad that it could invalidate having capital punishment.

"Getting caught in 4k" is not a standard you have rigorously defined, and even with a rigorous definition, the nature of reality, evidence, proof is incredibly complex and uncertain. Probably no fact you could ever propose would be 100% certain; Breivik could have had a body double waiting on the island to give himself up while he left the island.

Any prosecution of any criminal act has a component of "the tyranny of conceptualization / inference / reductionism". You're trusting that a prosecution has reduced reality to one thing, one judgement, one description, over another. Adding corruption to that equation, multiplied by every chain in the chain of command, you can start to see how at least 600 people have been wrongfully sentenced to capital punishment.

Edited Friday at 03:52 PM by Carl-Richard

[Basman]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The point is that even the potential of corruption in the case of capital punishment is so bad that it could invalidate having capital punishment.

"Getting caught in 4k" is not a standard you have rigorously defined, and even with a rigorous definition, the nature of reality, evidence, proof is incredibly complex and uncertain. Probably no fact you could ever propose would be 100% certain; Breivik could have had a body double waiting on the island to give himself up while he left the island.

Any prosecution of any criminal act has a component of "the tyranny of conceptualization / inference / reductionism". You're trusting that a prosecution has reduced reality to one thing, one judgement, one description, over another. Adding corruption to that equation, multiplied by every chain in the chain of command, you can start to see how at least 600 people have been wrongfully sentenced to capital punishment.

There are probably many more who have been wrongfully sentenced in general. Corruption is its own problem, not just relative to capital.

And I agree that there's potential for abuse, which is why you need a high standard and probably a bunch of additional bodies going through it (which I believe is already the case). 

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Probably no fact you could ever propose would be 100% certain; Breivik could have had a body double waiting on the island to give himself up while he left the island.

You have to be conspiratorial to think like that. That kind of ass pull doubt will not fly in court. Breivik is the perfect example of someone who should recieve the death penalty. There zero reasonable doubt of his guilt. 

[Willy Phallicus]

Best part is the lone jury holdout is a black man.

[Emerald]

On 9/10/2026 at 4:12 AM, Basman said:

Easy to say when its not your family and kids being murdered. In practice, certain crimes are unacceptable and humans want justice.

You don't want to live with rapists and murderers, even when they are technically safe. You don't want Breivik to be your carer when your old.

Justice is about keeping society safe. 

So, I think the murderers and rapists should not be allowed in mainstream society unless they are truly rehabilitated (which would be rare). 

The only reason why the death penalty would make sense as a form of justice is if the society isn't developed enough to have maximum security prisons to keep dangerous people sequestered away.

Like, if you're living in a tribe with no such facility and someone in the tribe is a murderer... then the responsible thing to do is to kill them. That's what's necessary to neutralize the threat.

But I don't think justice should be thought of as a punishment. And I don't think that the death penalty even makes sense as a form of punishment. 

I see justice as being about doing right by the victim, the criminal, and society at large...

You do right by the victim and society by removing the threat and ensuring that the crime cannot happen again.

But to do right by the criminal, you must remove the burden of freedom from them... as they are not capable of wielding freedom responsibility without causing harm.

Edited Friday at 10:56 PM by Emerald

[Joshe]

Conservatives be like 

Pride in the extermination of evil. Which we can all appreciate. It's just a matter of nuance.

Edited Saturday at 01:31 AM by Joshe

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Basman said:

There are probably many more who have been wrongfully sentenced in general. Corruption is its own problem, not just relative to capital.

The more severe the outcome of corruption is in a given situation, the more you should be wary of "legalization" of such corruption. 

 

5 hours ago, Basman said:

And I agree that there's potential for abuse, which is why you need a high standard and probably a bunch of additional bodies going through it (which I believe is already the case).

Since you're apparently not satisfied with the current standards, how high should the standards be?

 

5 hours ago, Basman said:

You have to be conspiratorial to think like that. That kind of ass pull doubt will not fly in court.

I'm not entertaining that as a likely hypothesis; I'm making a point that making factual claims is most probably (I can't come up with a counterexample) always less than 100% certain. And that should inform whether or not you want to kill people based on such claims.

Imagine that you take all prosecutions that will ever happen in the history of the world, you take the inevitable portion of wrongly executed people, put them all in a ditch, and you're standing on top of the ditch with a gun. You walk down the ditch and up to every person and look them straight in the eye, and for each person, you say "I might be wrong, but..." *pulls the trigger*. Every person you kill is innocent. That's the moral weight of you as a person supporting killing by the state as punishment (capital punishment).

21 years in a jail cell, unless you're old (which then you're less likely to commit such crimes), you have hope for a future, you have opportunity for recourse, you have a life where you can better yourself, work towards something. Around half of the people sentenced to death in the US were ages 20-29 at the time of crime; when they're below 25, their brains are not fully developed, and many criminals tend to grow out of it by 30-40.

Edited Saturday at 02:39 AM by Carl-Richard

[Basman]

On 9/12/2026 at 4:36 AM, Carl-Richard said:

I'm not entertaining that as a likely hypothesis; I'm making a point that making factual claims is most probably (I can't come up with a counterexample) always less than 100% certain. And that should inform whether or not you want to kill people based on such claims.

Your just begging the question at this point. I'm just repeating myself at this point.

On 9/12/2026 at 4:36 AM, Carl-Richard said:

21 years in a jail cell, unless you're old (which then you're less likely to commit such crimes), you have hope for a future, you have opportunity for recourse, you have a life where you can better yourself, work towards something. Around half of the people sentenced to death in the US were ages 20-29 at the time of crime; when they're below 25, their brains are not fully developed, and many criminals tend to grow out of it by 30-40.

Your argument is that it's acceptable to kill, mass murder and rape as long as you behave yourself afterwards. It's like you care more about murderers than the victims. You'd rather give people a slap on the wrist because you dislike perpetrating any kind of violence. It's so unserious. 

We're talking about monstrous acts here. Like killing your children. Not small time robbery. 

On 9/12/2026 at 0:55 AM, Emerald said:

But I don't think justice should be thought of as a punishment. And I don't think that the death penalty even makes sense as a form of punishment. 

I see justice as being about doing right by the victim, the criminal, and society at large...

That just not how it works in reality. People hate light sentencing for serious crime. It makes the courts look weak. It's technocratic hubris to act like courts don't serve an emotional function. People want fairness. Safety should be a given.  

In your version, it's acceptable to do the worst things imaginable as you long as your sorry. No hard line. That just makes it easier to get away with monstrous acts. They where about to aqcuit Lindsay Clancy for killing her children. 

[something_else]

On 11/09/2026 at 11:55 PM, Emerald said:

Justice is about keeping society safe. 

So, I think the murderers and rapists should not be allowed in mainstream society unless they are truly rehabilitated (which would be rare). 

The only reason why the death penalty would make sense as a form of justice is if the society isn't developed enough to have maximum security prisons to keep dangerous people sequestered away.

Like, if you're living in a tribe with no such facility and someone in the tribe is a murderer... then the responsible thing to do is to kill them. That's what's necessary to neutralize the threat.

But I don't think justice should be thought of as a punishment. And I don't think that the death penalty even makes sense as a form of punishment. 

I see justice as being about doing right by the victim, the criminal, and society at large...

You do right by the victim and society by removing the threat and ensuring that the crime cannot happen again.

But to do right by the criminal, you must remove the burden of freedom from them... as they are not capable of wielding freedom responsibility without causing harm.

Yea, I agree 100%. There are basically three reasons to incarcerate someone; deterrence, rehabilitation and public protection.

I think prisons should be built primarily around the latter two. Deterrence doesn't really work that well because most criminals typically don't think they're going to get caught anyway.

It ends up being a kind of revenge where criminals suffer to make the victims feel better. Which, while I empathise with it, isn't really something you should build your society or prison system around.

The death sentence falls firmly in the deterrence category. It's just systematic revenge. You could make an argument it was about saving tax payer money for criminals who clearly have zero chance of rehabilitation, which I think is somewhat valid reasoning, but in the end most of them are still imprisoned for 15 years in top security prisons which ends up costing the tax payer a fuck ton of money anyway. So that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Basman said:

Your argument is that it's acceptable to kill, mass murder and rape as long as you behave yourself afterwards.

Your argument is that it's acceptable to kill innocent people if it leads to an incremental feeling of justice in some cases for some people.

 

7 hours ago, Basman said:

It's like you care more about murderers than the victims.

If you support the death penalty and wrongful convictions are inevitable, it's almost as if you care more about the perpetrators than the victims.

 

7 hours ago, Basman said:

You'd rather give people a slap on the wrist because you dislike perpetrating any kind of violence. It's so unserious. 

You'd rather kill innocent people because you dislike not giving some people (people who support the death penalty, which is not everyone) an incremental feeling of justice ("it's good that they got locked up but they should really be killed").

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

On 11.9.2026 at 10:45 AM, Schizophonia said:

If we can anesthetize animals when they’re dangerous or kill them for food I don’t see why we wouldn’t kill psychopathic human murderers.

The rat-faced guy Salah Abdeslam took part in an attack that killed hundreds of people yet he can’t be put to death simply because "his sperm could still fertilize an egg so he is an homo sapiens" whereas we can euthanize a dog, eat a cow, or squash an insect.

To be consistent we’d either have to become Jains lol, or else admit that humanism and by extension the ban on the death penalty aren't actually rational, consistent.

By this logic, we can arbitarily classify a certain group of innocent humans and raise them as milk slaves, kill their children for veal and eat their corpses.

Because that would be rationally consistent.

 

You looked at this ethical equation and went the wrong way, lol. "We rape innocent animals, so why can't we rape innocent humans guys? That makes no sense, clearly we should be consistent and allow child rape!".

[Schizophonia]

37 minutes ago, Scholar said:

By this logic, we can arbitarily classify a certain group of innocent humans and raise them as milk slaves, kill their children for veal and eat their corpses.

Cannibalism is part of the human experience, but humans did not evolve to be docile and thus tend to rebel. Consequently most human societies have agreed dating back as far as the Paleolithic era to abstain from cannibalism and even later slavery, except under extreme circumstances.
Ethics is not objective; it is the unconscious internalization of power dynamics.

Yes we use animals to produce milk, meat, and eggs, but in exchange they live safe lives.
We all inhabit a binary, dualistic, and limited world, yet we don't go committing suicide over it.
Consuming animal products is ethically positive provided the animals are treated well above a certain standard.
A vegan can still make ethically terrible choices, such as being an executive who exploits employees or buying manufactured goods produced under lousy conditions.

Quote

Because that would be rationally consistent.

 

You looked at this ethical equation and went the wrong way, lol. "We rape innocent animals, so why can't we rape innocent humans guys? That makes no sense, clearly we should be consistent and allow child rape!".

No cows aren't raped; a rod containing sperm is inserted into the vulva to fertilize them. It takes just a few seconds.

It is a constraint yes but so what? Life is full of constraints; does that make reproducing in this world unethical

Edited 4 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Scholar]

42 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Cannibalism is part of the human experience, but humans did not evolve to be docile and thus tend to rebel. Consequently most human societies have agreed dating back as far as the Paleolithic era to abstain from cannibalism and even later slavery, except under extreme circumstances.
Ethics is not objective; it is the unconscious internalization of power dynamics.

Yes we use animals to produce milk, meat, and eggs, but in exchange they live safe lives.
We all inhabit a binary, dualistic, and limited world, yet we don't go committing suicide over it.
Consuming animal products is ethically positive provided the animals are treated well above a certain standard.
A vegan can still make ethically terrible choices, such as being an executive who exploits employees or buying manufactured goods produced under lousy conditions.

No cows aren't raped; a rod containing sperm is inserted into the vulva to fertilize them. It takes just a few seconds.

It is a constraint yes but so what? Life is full of constraints; does that make reproducing in this world unethical

You are giving descriptive claims. Humans also evolved empathy and don't want defenseless people to get executed if they reach a certain level of development, that has nothing to do with ethical consistency. If you are going to be descriptive, everything that ever did exist and will exist has a cause and therefore is justified as it is, including the resistance towards the death penalty and all the arguments resulting from that.

 

You used animals as an example for the hypocrisy of humans in relation to propositional ethical systems. I pointed out to you that you used unethical behavior towards animals to justify unethical behavior towards humans.

You could have, instead, recognized that the behavior towards humans is unethical, therefore the behavior towards animals is equally unjustified. 

Under your view, if humans did not have a disinclination towards cannibalism, it would be perfectly ethical to do exactly as I described in my prior hypothetical.

 

42 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

No cows aren't raped; a rod containing sperm is inserted into the vulva to fertilize them. It takes just a few seconds.

It is a constraint yes but so what? Life is full of constraints; does that make reproducing in this world unethical

By this logic if we lobotimize the subhuman class of individuals who become our milk-providers and we do the exact same thing to them, that wouldn't constitute rape or sexual exploitation. It would simply be reproduction, it just takes a few seconds after all.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Scholar

[Basman]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Your argument is that it's acceptable to kill innocent people if it leads to an incremental feeling of justice in some cases for some people.

 

If you support the death penalty and wrongful convictions are inevitable, it's almost as if you care more about the perpetrators than the victims.

 

You'd rather kill innocent people because you dislike not giving some people (people who support the death penalty, which is not everyone) an incremental feeling of justice ("it's good that they got locked up but they should really be killed").

I didn't say any of these things. 

I just think this softness on serious crime is unserious and pathetic. Giving murderers a slap on the wrist because anything harsher would hurt your own feelings. You don't even want to see how that's unfair. It's simply cowardice. 

[Carl-Richard]

On 11.9.2026 at 10:45 AM, Schizophonia said:

If we can anesthetize animals when they’re dangerous or kill them for food I don’t see why we wouldn’t kill psychopathic human murderers.

Using how we treat animals (as if it's grounded in some philosophically aware inquiry and conscious decision and not simply thousands of years of bronze age cultural manufacturing) as a standard for how we should treat humans, is more philosophically tone deaf than judging the soundness of metaphysical materialism based on the fact that probably most people in society seem to somewhat hold it.

[Carl-Richard]

43 minutes ago, Basman said:

I didn't say any of these things. 

You support the death penalty, no? As far as we have observed so far in the world, innocent people (as defined by a legal decision) die due to the death penalty.

 

43 minutes ago, Basman said:

I just think this softness on serious crime is unserious and pathetic. Giving murderers a slap on the wrist because anything harsher would hurt your own feelings. You don't even want to see how that's unfair. It's simply cowardice. 

I think the state killing innocent people is unfair. Locking up people who we have good reason to believe killed innocent people is a very tough punishment already. Taking away somebody's autonomy is very serious, people kill themselves over it (depression and perceived lack of autonomy are virtually identical).

Killing the people who killed the innocent people, granted that it will lead to the death of more innocent people, might be taking it too far as it perpetuates the very problem that you're trying to bring "justice" to. And then, where is the justice for the people who got innocently killed by state? Which person in the state should be killed as an act of justice for those people?

"It's like you care more about murderers than the victims". Here are the victims:

 

Edited 32 minutes ago by Carl-Richard