| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Oh, also, for the record, if for some reason I was charged of a crime that I was innocent of and my choices where life in prison or the death penalty I would absolutely want to die than "live" like a caged animal for the rest of my life. To me life in prison is strange and unusual punishment.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | So you can't see that if you kill someone they are not capable of escape or committing further crime? |
Yes, I see that. I don't see how it adds to the argument though. How about we kill everyone, then no crimes will ever happen?
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | I appreciate your opinion there! Personally I don't think we should ever have to consider it, it would personally be my preference that people not put themselves in the position where we have to discuss it, and by that I mean not committing horrible crimes. |
I appreciate your wishful thinking on a world without horrible crime. Another thing to think about is that if the death penalty were a complete deterrent, then nobody would have to face the death penalty.
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | pitcrawler wrote: | | By that logic it would be better to execute anyone who would otherwise receive a life sentence. In a free democracy that would not be acceptable. |
Yes, I agree that logic applies to anyone who would otherwise receive a life sentence. I'm glad you recognized that. That is exactly how I feel. Many people say "Abolish the death penalty!" and I say "Abolish life in prison!" Your declaration that it would not be acceptable in a "free democracy" is bizarre. Even if there was some way to completely substantiate that I still find the statement bizarre. I don't want to live in a "free democracy" anyway, I much prefer a republic for reasons such as this. In a true democracy slavery would likely still be legal, so given that historical truth I'm not sure how much weight your claim about "acceptable" in a "free democracy" can actually hold. |
So you'd like the US to be like China and execute thousands of people per year. If that were put to a public vote, it would definitely fail in the US. That's what I meant about acceptable. Free people generally have morals. I find it bizarre that you say my point is bizarre. And the US is a republic and a democracy, I don't want to get into an argument over semantics. It's irrelevant to my point. (What I meant: Free democracy: A place where people are free to vote for their leaders and majority vote generally wins.)
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | So you are saying that simply by abolishing capital punishment no innocent person will ever be incarcerated as a mistake?!?!?! Sure man, sure. |
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying no one will ever be killed by mistake. If you incarcerate someone by mistake there's always the potential for the mistake to be rectified and the person released.
Last edited by pitcrawler on Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomilieu
n00b
Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | Oh, also, for the record, if for some reason I was charged of a crime that I was innocent of and my choices where life in prison or the death penalty I would absolutely want to die than "live" like a caged animal for the rest of my life. To me life in prison is strange and unusual punishment. |
I'd say it depends. If I'm going to be totally isolated from society, then yeah, kill me.
If I get to converse with people from the outside (on a computer or otherwise), maybe even write and publish, then please lock me up instead of killing me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomilieu wrote: | | BonezTheGoon wrote: | | Oh, also, for the record, if for some reason I was charged of a crime that I was innocent of and my choices where life in prison or the death penalty I would absolutely want to die than "live" like a caged animal for the rest of my life. To me life in prison is strange and unusual punishment. |
I'd say it depends. If I'm going to be totally isolated from society, then yeah, kill me.
If I get to converse with people from the outside (on a computer or otherwise), maybe even write and publish, then please lock me up instead of killing me. |
Death forfeits your chance of being released on appeal or upon further evidence appearing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Death forfeits your chance of being released on appeal or upon further evidence appearing. |
I am fully aware of that fact, and I'd still choose death over the prospect of life in prison. Again, this proves nothing within the debate, it is just my personal preference that I was sharing to illustrate my own thinking, to establish my "angle" on all of this.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: |
I agree with you that it isn't superstition. I agree with you that it is irreversible, which to me is actually one of the "perks" in using that method (obviously so long as you have the right person!) I also agree with you that people who oppose the death penalty find it objectionable. That said I also know people who find it objectionable to eat meat. I also know a few strange people who find it objectionable to pass gas, under any circumstances.
My point is, that even if 99% of the world's populace finds the death penalty objectionable and it is entirely done away with, even in that situation, that doesn't rule out the possibility that it is a sane and reasonable practice. On the flip-side of that coin, I've done nothing to substantiate that it is a sane and reasonable practice in this post either. However, I think that looking at what the alternatives are and weighing the differences between using the death penalty and the resulting non-death penalty solutions is the only way to logically work through such a debate. Simply stating that it is objectionable doesn't do anything other than illustrate a preference, and preferences have no weight at all in a debate.
Just because I know people who object to me eating meat and passing gas doesn't mean I shouldn't. |
eating meat or passing gas doesn't violate someone else's right to life. if it does, put some more fibre in your diet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Right to life" is one of those fallacies that I mentioned that laws and society cannot provide simply because it goes entirely against nature itself. In the case of the gazelle vs. the lion, who's life is more important? Whose "right to life" is more pressing? I'd argue that there is no such concept of "right to life" in nature, it is a fairy-tale in the minds of humans. I mean the concept of "right to life" is most obviously invalidated with a miscarriage. There is no such thing, and any attempt to create it goes against nature and will only make matters worse, IMO.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | "Right to life" is one of those fallacies that I mentioned that laws and society cannot provide simply because it goes entirely against nature itself. In the case of the gazelle vs. the lion, who's life is more important? Whose "right to life" is more pressing? I'd argue that there is no such concept of "right to life" in nature, it is a fairy-tale in the minds of humans. I mean the concept of "right to life" is most obviously invalidated with a miscarriage. There is no such thing, and any attempt to create it goes against nature and will only make matters worse, IMO. |
 Fine. Go and live as a caveman with no technology or modern medicine etc... That's what your argument is advocating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Fine. Go and live as a caveman with no technology or modern medicine etc... That's what your point is advocating. |
I'd tend to disagree with you (obviously) but since you said it, it MUST be true. I stand oh so humbly corrected. Thanks for showing me the way.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | "Right to life" is one of those fallacies that I mentioned that laws and society cannot provide simply because it goes entirely against nature itself. In the case of the gazelle vs. the lion, who's life is more important? Whose "right to life" is more pressing? I'd argue that there is no such concept of "right to life" in nature, it is a fairy-tale in the minds of humans. I mean the concept of "right to life" is most obviously invalidated with a miscarriage. There is no such thing, and any attempt to create it goes against nature and will only make matters worse, IMO. |
we don't live in a state of nature. part of the point of society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: | | we don't live in a state of nature. part of the point of society. |
Ah, I get it now! So the rules of nature cease to affect me because I am part of society! Sweet! Thanks so much for clearing that up for me.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | juniper wrote: | | we don't live in a state of nature. part of the point of society. |
Ah, I get it now! So the rules of nature cease to affect me because I am part of society! Sweet! Thanks so much for clearing that up for me. |
If we lived by the rule of nature, someone could simply come and kill you and take all your stuff and there'd be no recourse. If we'd lived by those rules in the last few thousand years, we's still be a bunch of warring stone-age clans. (Actually that kind of resembles today, except we have bullets and bombs instead of stones) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I'm sorry that what I said looked like I was saying we should devolve. I wasn't trying to say that, obviously my word choice is failing to properly represent my thinking. As well I have properly been informed that my thinking is wrong to begin with.
Also I am not advocating anarchy, in any of its defined various forms, as a solution. I was merely trying to say something to the effect of this: Yes we can, using technology and higher thinking, somewhat bend some of the rules of nature (ie humans cannot naturally fly, yet with our machines we artificially can fly), but that doesn't invalidate the fundamental law of gravity. No amount of law-making, policy, technology, or invention will ever defeat the law of gravity.
I feel that no amount of policy will ever address the fact that the lion must eat other animals to survive and the obvious conflict of interest in trying to preserve all life in equality, when life feeds upon life. The only logical solution, in my opinion, is to embrace the natural cycles of things when there is no other clear course.
Seriously does anyone want to touch on their perspective about the "right to life" of the gazelle when facing being eaten by a lion who also has some "right to life"? Do you just want to continue to ignore that situation? I'm really very curious how you morally work your way through that dilemma.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: |
Seriously does anyone want to touch on their perspective about the "right to life" of the gazelle when facing being eaten by a lion who also has some "right to life"? Do you just want to continue to ignore that situation? I'm really very curious how you morally work your way through that dilemma. |
over time the lion will evolve to survive entirely off of soy
(go back and watch the "popplers" episode of futurama, FYI) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love Futurama.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | juniper wrote: | | we don't live in a state of nature. part of the point of society. |
Ah, I get it now! So the rules of nature cease to affect me because I am part of society! Sweet! Thanks so much for clearing that up for me. |
i didn't say we aren't part of nature, i said we don't live in a state of nature. big diff. well, maybe you do in the states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
invasivenorman
n00b
Joined: 06 Feb 2012
Posts: 28
Location: ::1
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Is capital punishment a deterrent for someone who's insane? |
It is from their second victim's point of view.
_________________
gurgle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: | | BonezTheGoon wrote: | | "Right to life" is one of those fallacies that I mentioned that laws and society cannot provide simply because it goes entirely against nature itself. In the case of the gazelle vs. the lion, who's life is more important? Whose "right to life" is more pressing? I'd argue that there is no such concept of "right to life" in nature, it is a fairy-tale in the minds of humans. I mean the concept of "right to life" is most obviously invalidated with a miscarriage. There is no such thing, and any attempt to create it goes against nature and will only make matters worse, IMO. |
we don't live in a state of nature. part of the point of society. |
The point is that rights don't come from nature, God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is no such thing as an irrevocable right. Such rights are granted only by agreement of men, and they can be taken away by agreement of men. Rights are a system of mutual give and take, like a contract. They don't come from the magic rights fairy.
To various degrees, when you violate the rights of others, your rights are in turn violated in recompense. If you steal, you will be forced to compensate to the extent possible and you will be punished with incarceration. This principle of retributive justice and the principle of culpae poena par esto (let the punishment fit the crime) are the cornerstones of our legal system, which is the foundation of our social architecture. This is what makes society work, and when you bastardize, taint, and dilute it with irrational exceptions based on inexplicable, unjustifiable religious beliefs, you weaken the fabric of society.
You people who believe killing is so wrong that killers shouldn't be killed have your heads buried in religious dogma. When some off-the-charts criminal, such as serial torturer and killer and innocent women and children, is merely sent to prison, they have not payed to the extent possible for their wrong, and the punishment does not at all fit the crime.
If the law doesn't enforce contracts, people stop believing in contracts and commerce suffers. If a society doesn't enforce its collective social contracts pertaining to mutual respect of rights, then society suffers and respect of rights is eroded. Why should I believe in, obey, and conform to the restrictions of a society that allows some serial killer to torture and kill children and then does next to nothing about it, even allowing him to continue to live, even putting three meals a day in his belly and providing him medical care, while the chunks of the children that remain rot in the ground?
There is nothing wrong with society judging that a man has by his own violation of the rights of others sacrificed his own right to live. The reason you think there is something wrong with it is because you have been brainwashed by the hand-me-down left-overs of religion to be categorically opposed to killing. It's not logical, it's not rational, and it's not even consistent with your acquiescent tolerance of violence committed in self-defense. In the larger sense, the routine and merciless elimination of such people is in fact self-defense, at the societal level.
In short, you're acting like irrational, primitive ooga-booga men scratching religious symbols in the dirt with antlers and examining the entrails of birds to decide what you should do. There is no logic, no sense, behind such thinking -- there is only obsolete mysticism and primitive superstition.
Again, this leaves the argument that capital punishment sometimes kills innocent people, which is a separate argument, to the side.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | You people who believe killing is so wrong that killers shouldn't be killed have your heads buried in religious dogma. |
How do you figure that? The facts show almost the complete opposite. Just look at some of the countries that have capital punishment.
| http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/map-which-countries-use-the-death-penalty/241490/ wrote: | The club of prisoner-executing nations is an inauspicious one. You've got the world's great dictatorships and autocracies (Iran, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, Cuba, Belarus), it's most failed and failing states (Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, Chad, Yemen, Guinea, Bangladesh), not to mention the entire Middle East save Israel.
So who's left? Which countries use the death penalty but are neither among the world's most failed states nor its most autocratic? The outliers make a strange list: India, Japan, Nigeria, Uganda, Botswana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and the United States. This is our league of capital punishment nations. Whatever the legal, ethical, social, and political arguments for and against the death penalty, its role in U.S. foreign policy, especially at a time when we are trying to convince leaders around the world to loosen restrictions and democratize, can be burdensome. |
Lots of autocracies and places where religious dogma is daily life. And it's common knowledge that in the US it's more the religious (Christian South) people who tend to suport the death penalty more than others. Whereas western Europe is not very religious compared to many of those countries that have the death penalty. It would seem that where people are given a free choice (No autocracy or religious dogma) they almost all chose to end the death penalty.
Basically, you couldn't have typed a more incorrect statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well it would seem to me to be somewhere between those two polar opposite extremes. It seems to me that abolishing the death penalty is a knee-jerk over-reaction from areas trying to free themselves of religious dogma. So, I would say the sliver of truth in what BK was getting at is that the remnants of religious dogma is the "passion" behind the decision but the sliver of truth in what pitcrawler is saying is that that passion is only being redirected because of the notion that they are somehow compensating for past transgressions.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | Well it would seem to me to be somewhere between those two polar opposite extremes. It seems to me that abolishing the death penalty is a knee-jerk over-reaction from areas trying to free themselves of religious dogma. So, I would say the sliver of truth in what BK was getting at is that the remnants of religious dogma is the "passion" behind the decision but the sliver of truth in what pitcrawler is saying is that that passion is only being redirected because of the notion that they are somehow compensating for past transgressions. |
You can talk about the motivation or history if you want, but I still say the facts speak for themselves. The majority of the free-thinking world chose to abolish the death penalty and not bring it back. The people have spoken, rather than a religious dogma or an autocratic government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | You can talk about the motivation or history if you want, but I still say the facts speak for themselves. The majority of the free-thinking world chose to abolish the death penalty and not bring it back. The people have spoken, rather than a religious dogma or an autocratic government. |
You contradict yourself in the three sentences you wrote there. Yes, I'll agree (at least tentatively, for the sake of illustrating your contradiction) that "the people have spoke" but then you DO in fact assume that you know "the motivation" of "the people" -- just because "the people have spoken" doesn't mean that they weren't speaking from religious dogma. Even if ultimately every single thought you, pitcrawler, ever had was perfectly correct those three sentences you wrote are in direct contradiction with themselves. You are divining motivation from the facts, just as I was. The difference is that in my quote I make the very clear distinction that my statement is tainted by my opinions, perspective, and personal thoughts.
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | Well it would seem to me . . . It seems to me . . . So, I would say . . . |
I use my own authority to validate my statements and ideas, not some unseen absolute verification by simply stating things as fact:
| pitcrawler wrote: | | The people have spoken, rather than a religious dogma or an autocratic government. |
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | ..
| BonezTheGoon wrote: | | Well it would seem to me . . . It seems to me . . . So, I would say . . . |
I use my own authority to validate my statements and ideas, not some unseen absolute verification by simply stating things as fact:
| pitcrawler wrote: | | The people have spoken, rather than a religious dogma or an autocratic government. |
|
Ok. The people seem to have spoken, rather than a religious dogma or an autocratic government. I'm not trying to guess a motivation, I was more making an observation. BK said people who oppose the death penalty have some religious dogma. I pointed out the obvious contradictory evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know you think you have. I'm trying to show you that just by saying "look the people have spoken!" doesn't prove motivation at all. The only thing that proves (if the facts are correct, which I am not directly challenging at this point -- I'm trying to make another point) is that "the people (for reasons unknown) have spoken!"
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BonezTheGoon
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 1376
Location: Albuquerque, NM -- birthplace of Microsoft and Gentoo
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also if you understood my point this would be the "fixed" version of your statement. We can roughly assume your facts are correct about "the people have spoken" -- you cited something for that. You don't need to make that relative to your opinion.
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Ok. The people have spoken, which I interpret is independent of religious dogma or an autocratic government. I'm not trying to guess a motivation, I was more making an observation. BK said people who oppose the death penalty have some religious dogma. I pointed out the obvious contradictory evidence. |
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
