Gilga-flesh

Trying to find errors in the reasoning of some people in this thread is like shooting goldfish in a bowl. Easy but pointless and gets boring quickly. Clearly many people didn't form their opinion on the basis of a reasoning. They formed their opinion on basis of emotions and then picked up some arguments they don't truly believe in to try to defend an opinion they don't actually understand. Arguments should be at the core of a belief and should stand or fall together. They are not ablative armor for your own ego.

Let me refresh your memory also. You insisted there is no other interpretation possible of last resort. I'm cool with that. So, you must try other options first like incarceration and if that doesn't work you can kill them right?

As you could get out of my posts, I understand death penalty isn't already being used exclusively on repeat criminals. What I asked was: would people accept death penalty if it was exclusively used on repeat criminals?

The former. It appears some people here do not realize the consequences (or meaning) of their own statements and are left without rebuttal when I confront them. It's a common symptom among people who do not have a logical reasoning to sustain their belief to begin with. They treat words as stones and just throw them like blunt weapons rather than have them naturally flow from logical reasoning.

Indeed! My question was hypothetical. There are many spiritual/religious believes without a god, or rather without an omnipotent creator, that include spiritual immortality of some kind.

Thanks. I'm used to reviewing scientific literature so inconsistent crap bothers me much. Also I'm bored I guess. But you're right. He's not worth it.

Possibly you missed the post I responded to? It was this one: Someone remarked how death penalty should be a last resort measurement. Which I thought it already was. So we got in an unfortunate linguistic discussion about the term last resort. Apparently people think it means that you should first try out other courses of actions before the last resort action become acceptable. Which of course means that they do think death penalty is acceptable as long as other courses have failed. Ergo repeat criminals.

Where to start. Let's summarize our discussion for the sake of sanity and late arrivals. "If death penalty is abolished the alternative is life in prison. Because these are the worst of the worst. Rehabilitation isn't really an issue if you plan to keep someone locked up in a cage forever." 0) I state the "worst of the worst" of criminals can't be released. As for your extreme example, of course their will always be some people considered to dangerous to be released, but, that said, 99% of the prison population in any given country is rehabilitatable. 1) You agree with me. You also claim that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated. No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example. 2) You refuse to back up your claim because it was meant as a counterpoint. And you can make those up apparently. You also no longer agree to my point that the worst criminals can't be released even though you already agreed to it a post earlier. Except ofcourse, my "extreme example" actually exists many times over and yours is completely made up. 3) I point out the obvious. The worst of the worst of criminals exist. But 99% of criminals have not been rehabilitated, nor is there evidence that they can be. 4) You disagree but lose the ability to use language. I especially like how you decided to post the same smiley twice. "Oh, you disagree that your statement that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated is made up? Strange cause you admitted it yourself just a few posts later. The example you claim as extreme is, unfortunately, not even remotely exceptional." 5) I'm confused and try to find out what's going on + I make a large reasoning about how society badly combines attempts to punish criminals and protect society. "Indeed." 6) You post a single word while deliberately quoting my phrase "This does not make sense" out of context. I guess it's better than a couple of smileys. Unfortunately there is still no indication of what part you disagree with, let alone an explanation as to why. "Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't." 7) I point out that you are not saying anything of worth. At all. "I, at least, explained why my supposition lacks evidence, whilst you just continue to insist yours is valid and mine is made up (hence the double face-palms).I look forward to the citations, you'll no doubt provide now, or at least an explanation as to why you can't provide them. BTW I live in a society that values freedom of speech, or would you deny me that?" 8) You again disagree with me and your former self. Apparently you no longer think that there are criminals who shouldn't be released. You demand scientific evidence for their existence and claim I'm oppressing your freedom of speech by exercising my own freedom of speech to tell you to put more meaning in your speech. 9) I get confused. Perhaps you can help me and answer the questions you left open. Why did you change your mind? What exactly do you disagree with? Do you really want me to find research to prove that some criminals are too dangerous to be released? Even though you already agreed with it? I did post this link a few posts before our discussion: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/135292/170-convicted-rapists-reoffend-after-released-from-prison I would think that would suffice.

It seems to depend on the definition of last resort you use. If you feel other punishments/measures must first be used, does that mean that you would support death penalty for repeat criminals (assuming crime of sufficient magnitude) that do not seem to be rehabilitable?

How about other punitive measures such as fines. What do you think of these?

If a country becomes a dictatorship they can do whatever they want regardless whether it was legal before. Aside from this, there are always ways to kill 'traitors' if you really want it. Even in countries without death penalty. That's why, when your country becomes a dictatorship, it's game over as far as ethics and legality issues are concerned. They people who determine what is legal ARE now the criminals and they don't need your or the public's approval at large in order to create their law. Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't. My country doesn't have death penalty either. But does the system work BECAUSE of the lack of death penalty and low max. sentencing? Or is the causality reversed? My impression is that societies tend to loose death penalty when they become more pacified. And call for death penalty increases when violence/terrorism goes up. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/last%20resort When nothing else works. In the opinion of lawmakers in countries like the USA, nothing less than death penalty would work to punish the very worst criminals sufficiently. It's the maximum punishment available for the worst crimes possible.

Does a belief in immortality of the spirit require a God?

Didn't intend to suggest otherwise. But it is quite possible to prove the existence of something. Especially very big and powerful things like elephants and suns. Though not gods it seems.

Oh, you disagree that your statement that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated is made up? Strange cause you admitted it yourself just a few posts later. The example you claim as extreme is, unfortunately, not even remotely exceptional. There are *many* serial pedo-raping child murders. Enough to start a society all by their own had that been a good idea. And I can't count the number of times that a trial came in the news because the pedo-murderer was laughing in court, even actively taunting the parents of the victims. These are complete psychopaths, according to psychology completely without conscious. They like hurting others and either don't feel their pain or even like it. Some don't even understand why other people are all touchy and sentimental about things like raped and murdered children. So tell me: what purpose did the facepalm smileys serve? In what way was my statement incorrect? As for your 'second' statement, though the first barely deserves to be called a statement: I don't care either way. As I made clear in my earlier posts, I don't mind if criminals are punished or merely kept away from society. I don't care if they receive the death penalty or kept imprisoned for live either. None of these are per definition evil or good in my eyes. I'm pretty much cool with any of these philosophies as long as they are approached consistently and in a rational manner. They usually aren't. And the badly mixed desire to keep society safe (isolate philosophy) and punish criminals (punish philosophy) at the same time has led to systems in which prisoners are tormented for long periods of time only to be released back in a society in which they can no longer function. Further increasing chances of relapse and harm to society. And death penalty is given even if the criminal desires death more than life and consider death a release. While other criminals beg for death and are kept forcefully alive as an act of 'kindness' rather than cruelty. This does not make sense. Ethicists abhor an ethical policy chosen on majority grounds. But if there is a strong favor among a public for either the punish or isolate philosophies then it might be better to just pick one and create a system which actually achieves what it set out to accomplish. Bloviation? His post could be more concise to match forum convention but it certainly wasn't empty of meaning.

Which god? Different cultures have/had very different type of entities which all got translated to gods. If you want a definition you have to observe the common base for all these entities. Which is a degree of immortality and a degree of supernatural power beyond what is ascribed to humans by the culture which acknowledges said god entity. The Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is of course an extreme example since he maxes out at both requirements. However that works against him in my aspect. Cause even though you can't prove whether a god exists or doesn't exist, it's easy to find reasons not to consider an omnipotent god worthy of worship just by observing the world.