i had no idea that my points were so difficult for some people to understand. i don't recall writing anything that was terribly unclear on this issue. yet it has been twisted and distorted out of true. please reread what i said. i think that the idea of THE PUNISHMENT FITTING THE CRIME is stupid and has nothing to do with justice at all. that was my point. and i can see one person on here is at least man enough to admit that he's a real sick individual who tortures animals and would probably become a murderer if ever given the chance. (claiming you decapitate mice "in the name of science" isn't so far removed from the "experiments" that psycho killers perform on animals before "graduating" to humans, and since you've just admitted that you would gladly "graduate" to humans so long as they "deserve" it, you are in fact proving my, and many other people's, point here.) i understand perfectly well how our system of justice works, and how it fails. capital punishment is illogical and goes against the rest of our "justice" system. you seem to not understand the point of a prison sentence. it isn't for revenge! it's meant as a time for the individual to reflect on what they did and why it was wrong, to look within him/herself and realize the negative aspects of their personality and lives, to see where they went wrong, and to ultimately get help to change that. we can go around and around in circles about how prison terms don't accomplish those goals, but that's pretty much what a prison sentence is for. it isn't meant as torture to act as punishment against someone. the other point of locking someone up is to keep them off the street. some people need this. i'm all for it when it's necessary. one other thing: losing a loved one is a horrible, life-altering event. i hope that no one murders anyone i love. but no i won't look for revenge. i know that that isn't going to ease my sense of loss or my pain one iota. i won't feel better with the knowledge that someone will be gassed or poisoned. how could it?

I don't know who "all of you people" are but I'd like to continue to put in my two cent's worth. I can't say that I'm against any sort of killing -- because I don't know what situations life might have (or might still) put me in. What I am against is a culture that takes killing lightly, or celebrates it; and I am against policies that treat killing as a solution to anything. This is where I appreciated Chris' original post. You asked some good questions we all must ask about defending ourselves. Aside from observing that they don't really apply to the post (because Saddam Hussein in his current condition is not a threat), I'll try to speak my peace. First, yes, I do believe dimplomacy would make the world a much safer place, and I don't think it's an ignorant thing to say (there's the insult). As for what I would do if presented with personal danger, well I guess we all have to cross that bridge when we come to it. I don't think anybody can honestly say how they might respond to trauma. This was brought home for me when we visited Lexington and Concord Mass. around the 4th of July. We learned that some of the MInutemen who thought they would fight ran away, and some who thought they would run, stayed to fight. As for invading armies, I guess that's why we have a democracy, to decide when the danger leaves no alternative but to shoot back. Again, Saddam did not invade us, so it doesn't really apply. www.joesnare.com

"That "eating veggies and meats = advocating the DP" idea... is pretty wacky, sista." I've heard of people using vegetables in Double Penetration... wacky indeed! Kinky, too!

For all of you people who are against ANY sort of killing and tell us how inhuman, or inhumane it is...how do you suppose we should defend ourselves when threatened with death? Are you going to take the higher road as you and your neighbors are slaughtered without mercy or deference to women and children? Would you kill anyone in an invading army to protect your country and our laws, principles, and way of life? Are you really that ignorant to believe we can have world peace if we just "talked" more? Or are you just debating for the sake of disagreeing with our current foreign policies?