| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 13:53:19
Beautiful.
I submitted a review for the George W Bush biopic, 'W'. I went with:
Must stand for 'wanker'.
Got a decline on the grounds that the review is 'not factually accurate'. It was more an opinion than a statement of fact, but, if we look at it that way, is the MERP declaring that Dubya doesn't whack off?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 01:31:33
Or turn Manhattan into a prison, now that's sounds like a good movie.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 22:01:28
I like that idea. 
Or put them in a dismal prison cell for life, with a rope hanging from the ceiling. And let them do whatever they like.  |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 17:08:05
I think there should be a cross between The Running Man and Battle Royale. Let's face it, if you're a murdering fuck and you have a compulsion to kill, it's better off for everyone that you kill another murdering fuck. And we can watch without remorse because we know the world will be better off without all these murdering fucks.
'George, Idi, Pol, Adolf - choose your weapons.'
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 14:13:46
Yes, I agree with that too. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 05:23:49
Yep that's a major reason.
The other major one is that capital punishment de-sensitises society to violence to some extent (IMO), by essentially making the statement "The solution to a problem is often extreme violence". Hence societies with capital punishment seem to have a habit of being more violent than societies that don't have it. I think a society is better off not feeding the bloodlust of some of it's members, and is healthier if it teaches people that violence is a bad thing rather than being a righteous tool of the 'justice' system. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 07:55:49
Yes, I was going to mention capital punishment, though for different reasons. Murderers take away people's voice, but they also take away their lives. I don't want to retaliate by taking away their voice any more than their lives.
Sean, do you mean the risk of killing innocent people as your objection? Aside from it being wrong in principle, that for me is an insurmountable argument against capital punishment.
I don't like getting into this subject, as pro-capital punishment people always end up insinuating that others don't object to murder as much as they do, when in truth I am just very, very pro-life in virtually all contexts. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 06:53:49
I agree with foxy.
I don't there's anything particularly special about humans, and I completely disagree with those who think ALL humans are special and have a right to exist, including those who rape and murder people. Those kinds of people (psycho rapist-murderers) are even worse than a waste of carbohydrate. They have no rights at all, not even to breathe.*
*I don't approve of capital punishment at all, for completely different reasons. It has nothing to do with whether evildoers have rights or not. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 06:04:34
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Easy to draw a line, if you kill someone you have NO rights at all.
Not really following this thread too closely but I have to react to this statement which seems a little extreme to me. Being a murderer or any other criminal should not automatically negate your human rights. It's a large topic and a multi-faceted one, but nothing is ever as clear cut as that comment suggests.
I just don't see why they have a right to voice and the person they killed doesn't have a life anymore, sorry.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 05:50:06
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Easy to draw a line, if you kill someone you have NO rights at all.
Not really following this thread too closely but I have to react to this statement which seems a little extreme to me. Being a murderer or any other criminal should not automatically negate your human rights. It's a large topic and a multi-faceted one, but nothing is ever as clear cut as that comment suggests. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 05:15:25
Easy to draw a line, if you kill someone you have NO rights at all.
They're lucky they weren't hanged in public, so they should stop complaining about not being able to vote.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 04:42:29
I don't think voting rights should be affected by any criminal punishment. Otherwise it is just not clear where to draw the line. And we are in a weaker position to object to countries denying other types of prisoners (e.g. political ones) the vote. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 00:11:31
What about murderers that took away the voice of the victim?
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 10/21/2008 : 01:55:36
I was also (just) 21 when I first voted, as I turned 18 in 1994 and the next general election was in 1997. I wanted to vote in (British) local elections while I was in Nepal in 1995, but my mum failed to send me the postal ballot.
Anyway, I'm mentioning this because if the age were 16 I would (just) have been able to vote in 1992. 18 seems a reasonable age until you remember that 16-year-olds can work full time and thus be taxed. Taxation without representation sound familiar? It's not quite such an impossible-to-refute argument as that raised by the Vietnam War, but I still find it very compelling.
Another issue I only first read about recently, and by coincidence has been confirmed by a friend of my flatmate currently visiting from the U.A.E., is that all adult citizens having the vote does not equate to democracy. It had never occurred to me before that one could be born and live one's whole life in a country and not be eligible for citizenship. However, as he is ethnically Indian, he is compelled to have an Indian passport. (This is something that India allows for all ethnic Indians, but I wonder what happens when the other country is not so accommodating.)
Finally, I strongly object to any prisoners being denied the right to vote. They should only have their freedom taken away, not their voice. I don't think they would make a difference here, but I know that there are some massive prisons in the U.S. in otherwise low-population areas. I think that the prison set-up should be different (or they could just get to vote only in their area of previous residence) rather than denying them the vote for fear of some ridiculous/dangerous local results. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 23:55:30
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
By the way, my review for this movie was accepted - and I was surprised it got through.
David Cross agrees with you
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 15:06:59
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
By the way, my review for this movie was accepted - and I was surprised it got through.
Me too!
Maybe it was the question mark that allowed the MERP accept to it. I only submitted it as a joke, and was sure it was going to be rejected. (Yes, I do that sometimes.) But Benj, if you think it isn't appropriate or shouldn't have gotten accepted, you are welcome to delete it.
Thanks for that- I'll check with the MERPs first, see if I'm missing something |
