Hain

I have been hesitant about posting this because I am riddiculed and criticized for believing it. This is a thread about the death penalty, and something else. By Conceit I do not mean to be vain, I mean a complicated metaphor. The topics here are not normally considered together, thus are a conceit.

I apologize right now incase I offend anyone, and most likely everyone that reads this.

First I must get this out of the way: If you have read some of my other posts and feel that I am being hypocritical about this issue, I am not. The post on my belief of the potential of people in the "Why are you Christian?" thread never stated anything what I am about to propose.

I recently witnessed a debate in my school about the death penalty. Both sides were required to present the information each would argue to the teacher before the actual debate because certain resources conflicted. And unfortunately the information was accurate and some contradictory. It was argued whether or not the cost of keeping a person alive for the rest of their life in prison was more than sentencing them to death. During this argument it came to me a term that sometimes haunts me when I understand how rational my mind can be (read Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment if you would like the evils of a rationalistic mind).

Forfeited rights of a human: when an act that is classified as being wholly destructive to another human being, one can no longer be considered a human being.

I mean that the people that sit on death row or life in prison without parole are not human beings anymore because of the crimes that have been committed by them. To receive such sentences, one must have done something incredibly heinous: be a serial rapist, mass murderer… Those are only two types of people that I can perceive that should not be considered humans. The nature of these crimes is one where the criminal has taken away the rights of another human being, and I believe that the rights of that criminal are now forfeit.

“Where does this go?” many of you must ask disgustedly. I believe that criminals (serial offenders that confessed to their crimes and do not sincerely feel remorse for their actions) with life in prison without parole or are on death row now should be used for human experimentation. I believe that it is ridiculous that my tax dollars go to federally pay to keep this monster alive. Not only that, but one who is to be put to death cannot so be euthanized unless he or she is in complete physical and mental fitness. I cannot believe that before this criminal is to be executed, he/she must be in peak health to do so…

I believe that a person on their death bed has more right to life than a person on death row. I think that these criminals should be used to save the lives of others, either through organ donation or medical testing. Yes this is heartless but have any here lost people to criminals that did not deserve to live and no good came from their execution? Also has anyone lost a loved one to death row only to be proved innocent later? I am aware of the predetermining flaw in our justice system that must then make my concept flawed… What is your opinion on using prisoners for medical purposes? This topic doesn't end here and will touch everything from the Constitution to theology.

"If you have a mind to speak, I have an ear to listen."

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Johnny Rotten

In the criminal justice system, the death penalty is the debt they pay to society. To experiment on them would be cruel and unusual punishment, and even a convicted felon owns his body parts, unless he enters the Armed Forces.

The italicized phrase in your post above also does not make a distinction between murder and things like accidental death, self-defense, temporary insanity (controversial but nevertheless on the books), or a soldier in time of war killing on the battlefield. What about a person who mistakenly thinks he has repressed memories of childhood molestation, and kills his molester? Is contract killing wrong, or acceptable if it's done for a greater good? What if the killer really enjoys his "greater good" work, and getting paid for it is just a bonus? What if you're told that you have to kill someone, and if you don't you'll die as a result?

In attempting to refine the statement, you will find yourself sifting through subtler and sublter shades of meaning, until the lines are completely blurred and it becomes a matter of personal opinion.

At any rate, say the killer did it for the wrong reasons, was aware of the impact of his actions, was sane, etc. Someone who should be locked up. Can they no longer produce something worthy, without sacrificing their own bodies? Are they not allowed the chance to redeem themselves? I contend that we have these essential rights. I contend that humanity must be compassionate, because, to paraphrase someone, we as a nation are judged by how we treat our lowest common denominator. Even the most henious monster has a right to a fair trial. If they do not, granting this right becomes a moral decision, rather than an ethical one. And we all know how radpily and drastically social morals morph back and forth. I do not consider myself a conservative, but I agree with Justice Scalia's take on the Constitution--that the rights granted therein cannot be endangered by a potentially temporary and mistaken popular consensus.

Rdr4evr

I believe if experiments are to be conducted on heinous criminals; it is devaluing and a step backwards for humanity. If one commits brutal actions against another resulting in permanent damage, trauma or death, it seems that a life sentence would be sufficient punishment, minus benefits of regular inmates. Although I believe capital punishment should be used only in the most extreme cases when all other viable options run out, it depends on what type of experiments are to be performed on the criminal. To conduct experiments that are torturous and agonizing for the criminal is inhumane, and although the criminal’s actions that put him in that situation were inhumane as well, it will do nothing but lower ourselves to that same level.

Either way, the question is too general for me to come up with a definite answer, like the previous poster mentioned, without a distinction, it is extremely difficult to give a solid opinion. If possible, it would be worthwhile to keep the criminals alive and have them perform duties that are beneficial to society, yet humane, and if not, like I said, keep them locked up with zero benefits and allow them to think for the remainder of their lives about the crime they committed and if it was indeed worth it, or execute them if completely deserving (which I can not be the judge on).

My capital punishment opinion is not completely solid either as I am still torn trying to decide if it is the correct solution for any crime, but like you stated in your earlier post, I have not lost a loved one from a brutal crime so my opinion may differ completely if a situation like that had taken place for me.

martinguerre

What, pray tell...other than the God that put God's divine image in to every human being...could erase that same image? I know of no way in which a human being can cease to be human. Murders cheapen life, whether they are commited by an individual or the state.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

raveneye

I think that anybody who argues that forced medical experimentation is cruel and unusual punishment thereby commits himself to the position that execution is cruel and unusual. Otherwise you have the absurdity that medical experimentation is crueler than death itself.

Similarly, if execution is not cruel and unusual then certainly medical utility also is not, because its impact is less than death (forced donation of body parts couldn't even be considered punishment if the person is already executed.)

I think the main take-home-point in this discussion is that the U.S. already is doing things to its inmates that most civilized countries in the world would consider absolutely wrong.

Adding forced medical experimentation to the list might be consistent with this overall pattern, but it's still wrong. And I would leave the country if it happened.

Willravel

I would not take another life under any circumstances. I would never force my belief on others, but I would like to see people considering what "humanity" really means before deciding to take someone elses life. Considering how many death sentences are overturned alone is reason to pause. Even if someone is guilty of bombing a building and killing thousands of people (Timothy McVeigh, for example), I don't find killing necessary. The system should be there to help people. I you blow up a building, I'd be willing to bet you have some issues to work out. Because it is morally wrong to execute mentally disabled and unstable people, this applies. It's aruable that almost everyone on death row (who isn't innocent) has serious mental problems of some kind. If those problems are recognised, addressed, and treated we might see people actually change into functional and decent members of society.

Killing someone takes their opportunity to change. Killing someone puts society at the same level as the killers we condemn. Imo.

Hain

I understand that there are circumstances that compromise my statement--like temporary insanity or involuntary murder. I am a strong believer in justifiable murder because there are such extremes in this world where their is no other option than "him or me." I said later in my post (which I will now edit to bold these phrases)

I stated here that serial murderers or serial rapists should be used in this type of research. The ones that were sane, were not forced by others (including Military service), and do not feel remorse are the monsters that I described that forfeit their rights to humans.

I once was religious martinguerre, I believed in the same thing that you do: we were made in the image of God. But the ironic death of the one person that kept my religion forced me to look and see that maybe some aren't as divine as they should be.

I will not accept mass murderers as human beings. People that murder for hire, are monsters for they profit on the suffering and deaths of others. How can they even begin to have that same divine spark that you or I have? I don't accept it.

The whole reason for this is that these criminals took the rights away from others. Look at the law. Our justice system understands that for police to capture criminals that sometimes the police must act like those criminals.

So take this one step further: allow the penalties to reflect the actions of the criminals. I, too, agree with the no cruel and unusual punishment in terms of stealing or vandalism. Like in other countries were loss of limb occurs for stealing is inhuman because of the conditions that those people live in. There is hunger and poverty so the only way to support oneself would be through theft.

But murderers and rapists are the criminals that I am really focusing on. I place "do unto others as you would have done unto you" before no cruel and unusual punishment. Since I would not stand for a system that punishes in the way one committed a crime, I do see using a criminal for human experimentation as justifiable.

EDIT: I didn't want to bother bumping this and I regret never saying it before but, when, pray-tell, did God enjoy raping and murdering people? If we all are created in God's divine image, where do these elements fall in. And don't bother with the Devil because this is a rhetorical question.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

martinguerre

What about the warden of your prison? After all these folks have died...what is that person...other than a mass murderer...someone who could kill with out remorse, and would admit to doing so?

What you're suggesting is that we get a whole lot more comfortable inflicting death and pain. Who do you want to be the one who listens to these killers scream as the experiments are carried out? Do you want the person who is capable of that callous inhumanity to be in your neighborhood? Or do you imprison that monster too?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Master_Shake

To say that people can forfeit their rights by virture of their actions seems to me to imply that rights are not inherent in people, but exist only because they are recognized by others. That's fine if you want to go that way, just hope that nobody ever decides not to recognize your rights because you're a murderer, or a pederast, or a drug dealer, or a whatever.

I don't oppose the death penalty because I care about the people on death row, I don't. I care about myself and don't like giving other people power over me. I'm not currently a murderer, and have no plans to become one, but every power or right we give the government is a right we lose for ourselves.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Hain

Did I ever say that these experiments would be inhuman? Did I say that the process would be painful? I did not, nore had I planned on doing so. And yes, if I were in the medical field I would be willing to test a new vaccine directly upon them without hesitation, or a new treatment to cancer, or anything else.

And yes our rights can be forfeited by another if that other doesn't recognize them. Turn on the news once and see a new murder or another person raped, more people slaughtered for what? By whom? By those that don't care that the other person is still a person. This is a random off shoot of the topic at hand but applies to this conversation I am having at the moment. To take power away from a law is to simply stop obeying it. The only reason that civilization has a system of laws is to keep order. And these laws are reinforced with punihsments should they be broken. Now, if suddenly no one obeyed laws, then thereare none.

I notice Shake, that you quote Dark City. I enjoyed that movie because in the end Murdock defeats the Strangers. In that movie people were forced into this experiment of the Strangers without reason other than the Strangers needed to survive. I am not saying that we take away any one's rights because there is something that needs to be cured. I am saying that if there is an opprotunity to save someone's life at the expense of another's life that took away the rights and life of someone else.

Martinguerre, if I needed to become the monster to save the life of someone else, I could live with that. The life I take is one that has already taken the lives away from from others.

What I believe should be done is not a new form of punishment, nor a torture designed for as such. It is to use criminals to possibly save the live of others. If anything, where penance would not be found by the criminal, this is attonement for the crimes they've comitted.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

nickynicole

And how would you qualify "murder" or other heinous crimes? Must they only be carried out by one person, or would heinous crimes commited in the name of nationalism result in forfeiting basic human rights?

Furthermore, criminals, or rather, people who have commited terrible crimes, are very capable of making positive contributions to society, outside of being vicitims of inhumane medical research.

martinguerre

Cancer drug goes wrong...do you know what happens? It might eat away bone marrow, slowing starving the body of blood cells. Or maybe it would target a vital organ.

Careless medical research is torture. Do i need to say the words "Doctor Mengele?"

That's exactly what i'm talking about. I'm afraid of the people who become monsters to hunt other monsters.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Hain

Nationalism is one thing. I am against war but I understand that soldiers fighting for our country is something that must be done, for now. Murder, that is not justifiable, is not right. And I said earlier, criminals that feel no remorse their heinous acts. That is why I stated this because criminals can become part of society again. However that is not frequent.

You wouldn't have to remind me of Mengele, I was called that the first time I debated this at my school. It never reached this depth of review because the tables were favored on my side--I was debating against people that didnt take the class seriously.

Again, criminals that are mutliple offenders, mass murders, serial rapists, are the criminals that I describe. These are the monsters that I do not feel worth that gift of life.

I have another bit of myself that I would like to share.

As an agnostic, from the lack of god in my life, I feel that our purpose to better ourself and those around us. And if there is a God, that is the intended purpose for our presence. However, our society has become so warped and distorted that we have lost site of what is really precious in this world, and that is each other.

Now, we constantly struggle to make ends meet. Life is too short to work for petty materialistic forms of success. In my opinion, everyone's job--their duty--as a human being should be to create and work for a better world we live in. Success should not be measureds in terms of money--it should be measured in how much is given back to world. How have you helped your fellow man? JFK almost had it when he said "Ask what you can do for your country." The country is too limited a term. It should be for the entire world that benefits from your presense.

Now, these criminals had their chance to make the world a greater place... but they took that chance away from someone else. Now, this is their chance to atone, to make an amend to better the world if they can do nothing else.

That is what I believe and continue to believe. If you quit trying to make this world a better world, fine. If you quit on this world to remove someone else from it... not acceptable.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
In the absence of light, darkness prevails.
God is light, and in God there is no darkness.

Sometimes, one must do that which is evil to stop evil. I am not stopping evil though. I am trying to convince any who come to this thread that evil should be benefitted from, if nothing else. If nothing else, I am enjoying the debate here. I cannot get this kind of clear headed argument/discussion where I live.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

martinguerre

I'll say it one more time for repetition. Careless medical research is tantamount to torture. I don't much care who you're using it on. Beyond my care for the victim, i am very concerned about what that torture does to the inflicters. What happens when we train ourselves to not see other humans as human?

my signature line...is not a defense of inaction. i am aware that good people must at time engage in evil. but we must be very careful to say that we do not believe in it. if something threatens, it is permissable to pick up a gun, to stand in defense of innocent life. but when the threat is past, you put it right back down. there is nothing about that violence that gives life... we may know no other way, we may see no other road. but as soon as we can see...we'd better be ready to drop our violence and resume our hope. with out a hope for something better...there is no point in trying to save anything.

you would amuse yourself with violence...for what? to feel better about the world? to create a feeling of justice? to prove to yourself that killing is wrong?

no...to believe in violence is to give up everything worth fighting for.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

flstf

As others have said in previous posts, we seem to convict a number of innocent people for crimes they did not commit. Until we can figure out a way to get the police, prosecuters and courts to stop doing this, I'm not for adding any additional punishments. Even if the system was perfect I would be against performing medical research on unwilling prisoners. It's not what civilized people do.

asaris

First, let's give up this nonsense about murderers not being human any more. "Human" is a scientific term referring to a member of a specific species, and so we can no more cease being human through our actions than a lion who was too old to hunt would cease being a lion. Similarly, one does not cease being a person by comitting a series of murders. This is just bad use of language.

Second, there's a slippery slope lurking around here somewhere. If we decide that serious criminals no longer have rights, where do we draw the line? Do terrorists have rights? Enemy combatants? Enemy non-combatants? Quislings? People who aren't quite as patriotic as they 'should' be? I'm in general suspicious of slippery slope arguments, but this seems to be one case where they should be looked at.

Third, assume for the moment that there are no such creatures as 'human rights'; that is, that rights are granted to us by the government is order to make society happier/more productive/whatever. I mean that, on this story, governments at some point figured out that things run more smoothly if people have rights. But how would people react if they saw the government taking away rights? They would start to be nervous that their own rights could be taken away as well, especially if the gov't started moving down the slippery slope. The gov't contradicts itself by creating rights and then taking them away.

Fourth, assume that human rights are something held by every human person, merely in virtue of being human. In that case, since prisoners, whatever they have done, are still human, they still have rights.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Master_Shake

I think you are assuming that the government is somehow superior to common criminals. I don't make this assumption, and I don't believe that the government is looking out for our best interests. I have always seen the government as a better organized version of the mafia. They demand protection money (taxes) or else they burn your business down (or throw you in jail). I wouldn't recognize the authority of the mafia to put me to death for whatever reason, and I wouldn't recognize the authority of the government to put me to death.

Does that mean you think that people are Evil? I don't believe in good or evil, just cause and effect. People have reasons for why they kill. That we label those who kill for unreasonable reasons murderers does not make them evil.


But how orderly must a civilization be? Too many laws results in oppresion, and just because some people break some laws doesn't invalidate all of them. Many people break the speed limits or other traffice laws and that doesn't make them evil or a threat to society.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

ranger

Your rights as a human don't exist if you violate the rights of others. Because if you violate another humans rights, which is an inhuman act, does that not strip away your own humanity? Therefore making you inhuman and your rights null and void.

When I have read everything over more fully I'll be back.

ranger

And, about becoming a monster to save others, for the greater good, IS acceptable, if not great for that person. Have you people ever seen the Punisher?

Law is in the eye of the beholder, and subject to personal tilting to make someone happy.

Master_Shake

That just sounds really iffy, I mean, it assumes that we all share the same ideas of human rights and that we all agree what is or is not an inhuman act.

And is it really so inconcievable that you might find yourself in the position of these "inhumans"? These people aren't aliens, they just don't appear out of nowhere. They come from the same genetic pool we do, they are raised in the same environment we are. I often don't agree with how others behave, and if I had the power I might act in contravention of the law. While I don't want to encourage murder, I think it's a mistake to kill people who act differently from the rest of us. Do that long and directed enough and all you'll wind up with is a population of sheep.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

Hain

"Monster" is a figurative term that I use. Evil gets used far too frequently. the defining characteristic of a "human" is one that recognizes the rights of other humans. An "inhuman" or an act of that of a monster, is on that disregards the rights estitled to other humans.

As I said military is in a category all its own. I am apposed to war but I understand that soldiers are protecting innocent that cannot protect themselves. Patriotism is not the issue. I couldn't care if someone wasn't patriotic or if one was. I myself am not the Be-All-American. The issue is of a higher law that beings should be following and what happens when those laws are broken. If everyone followed and accepted that all have the basic human rights, then why would there be murder, aside from extremes of mental illness or disease.

The idea is the government must recognize these higher laws of life. However when an act that is destructive to another's life and rights (i.e. rape and murder), then the perpetrator has forfeited his or her rights. The perp. did not recognize the rights of others, so now their rights are not recognized. I strongly believe in the "Do unto others" bit and I am taking it a step further. The government cannot take away rights of those that are innocent. If my system that I propose got out of hand to the point where the government began taking away anyone's rights, I would be the first one to take action. That is why the Constitution is there for those that abide by the higher law. When the rights of the innocent are taken away then the people are allowed to change the government, forcefully if necessary.

No, the prisoner is no longer human (from that mentality stand point) because of the fact that the perp. removed the rights of someone else. What good is having these higher rights to life if the criminal can disregard them and still keep their own?

And I understand that. And the most destructive acts against life (besides terrorism) would be rape and murder. HOWEVER, there are instances where murder is justifiable. For instance, when your own life or the lives of those you are love are in direct threat of death by another. But the fact is Ranger got the nail on the head.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Suave

Hells naw. Then again, I don't support the death penalty anyway. I also do not believe that committing a crime makes one inhuman either, no matter the crime. The primary reason that crimes are committed is because people are "human."

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Hain

Thanks everyone. I think this issue is fairly worn out unless someone still wants to try to convince me that monsters don't exist. My position won't changed because... this issue hits home. I am not a criminal, nor have I lost any one, but I was friend to one of my so called "inhumans." He fooled everyone, and even bragged about what he had done... as if it were something to be proud of. I wish I were able to reveal what that monster had done... but I swore to those hurt--those innocent violated--never to repeat it or who.

If I am a monster than I be a monster. But this monster has a code that he will never break, nor tolerate when others break the most valued rights. Especially from those he once called friend.

Thank you again for this thread discussion. Maybe next time I can post something that more than one will agree on. I will admit Ranger is a friend of mine from school, who also knows the events that occured, and agrees that the one in question is a monster. Continue posting if you like on this, I am always one for a good argument like that you all have given.

Sincerely-
-Jake "The Wanderer" August
Aka Drake the Gargoyle

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Seer666

I've read a few of the posts here. Don't really have time to read them all right now, but I feel the need to put in my 2 cents.

First, I do support the death penalty. I fully believe that sometimes, all it takes is one bullet to make the world a bit better place. Now, the problem I've seen with a lot of the points put out here, is that they focus solely on the rights of the individual. And this is good, the individual should have the right to pretty much what they want to, with in the limits they the actions they take are not harming another person. And I do NOT mean offending them with that statement. That is something people need to suck the fuck up. One of the down sides to being free is that people get to do things you don't like. Deal with it, or go elsewhere. Also, people bring up the whole "what about people who kill in war" argument. Doesn't fly. War has it's own rules. It is an extreme situation in which conventional thinking no longer works. That is why it is call war.

Now, while the individual should have the right to live their life in the fashion they see fit, they also have to remember that we are part of a civilized society, and as such, our actions have to be tempered to fit in, to a degree, with the lives of others. Once a person is no longer able to function in a given society, they become a drain on it. Now, in extreme cases, like mass murders and rapist, the best and only logical solution is to remove them. The easiest and cheapest method of this is too simple kill them. A person forfeits all rights to be treated as a part of the whole when they refuse to act like a part of the whole. Slave labor, entertainment, whatever. If they can be used, then use them, if not, kill them. And the whole cruel and unusual punishment thing is one of the few points of this countries views I've always disagreed with. By it's very nature, punishment HAS to be "cruel and unusual" to work. Someone robs a store, drag them out to Times Square and flog the holy hell out of them. When people see what will happen to them, they well think a little harder. While a mass murderer may still be human, it does not mean we should be inclined to treat them as such. If they are willing to take the action, they can also take the repercussion.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

Hain

Stealing is not a devastating crime because in many cases there are people that cannot live with the aid of stealing something to survive. Society has cast them aside and will not help them. Granted I live near a few lazy bums that really need to stop draining welfare to satisfy their drinking habits and that kind of behavior should not be paid for.

But I also had neighboors that stole steaks from Jewel because they were too poor to live otherwise. But people in big business that steal from their company... there are some people that need to be flogged because their greed is only working to better themselves at the expense of others. They already can maintain themselves but they feel that need more? Not a chance in any company I create. I must be too naive to believe in working for the satisfaction of working. If you dont like your job and feel that to spice it up you need to steal from it... get a new job... one that pays less... and requires you to stand at the top a very large building without a safety harness.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

martinguerre

It seems that you have a pretty comfortable relationship with death, specifically the deaths of others.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Hain

Hain

Like Seer said, only those that are a drain on other humans am I comfortable with their absence. But maybe that near death working environment might just bring some sense to that person.

And yes, I am comfortable with death. I have little to regret in my life: a couple of bad relationships, a few curses and regretable words at friends when they hurt me, but overall I am honorable. And if there is an afterlife, I hope well then I am probably in for a bad ride. I will have faith in myself and those around me before I put that faith into a force that may not even care that I exist, if It exists at all. I understand that you find strength in your beliefs, and I am not arguing that. I am saying that my beliefs give me strength more so than what yours once did for me.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\