Rakasha Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Post #94 I never made a huge deal out of it. I just meant to say that the purpose of the post 43 seems likely to be founded on a vapid ad hominem. All that, I already said, because I find hard to believe the huge coincidence that instead of answering a request of clarification, post 43 was one sentence on subject then all about why blike's point of view is normal and mine is incomprehensible and hypocritical. I don't know if that's normality around here. I'm not making a huge deal out of it, and I don't care much. That's why I suggest we either agree to disagree, either we conclude that I'm a wierdo or either we simply continue on pm. This has no place on the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I never made a huge deal out of it. I just meant to say that the purpose of the post 43 seems likely to be founded on a vapid ad hominem. All that, I already said, because I find hard to believe the huge coincidence that instead of answering a request of clarification, post 43 was one sentence on subject then all about why blike's point of view is normal and mine is incomprehensible and hypocritical. I don't know if that's normality around here. And all I'm saying is that you are wrong; he did not make any claims about your view being abnormal. Look up "dichotomy". I'm not making a huge deal out of it, and I don't care much. That's why I suggest we either agree to disagree, either we conclude that I'm a wierdo or either we simply continue on pm. This has no place on the thread. You accused an admin of a personal attack where none was made. If you can't back it up, that's your problem and your own fault - I'm not sneaking off to PM to save face for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 i havent been back since i started this thread as such, i havent had a chance to read this all. i will get to but it's alot of reading. however, i would like to add one more element to this that i didnt see anyone mention. and its obvious one too. is there any weight in the fact that the criminal that was executed was found guilty by a jury? a trial by jury is a trial by the people, a trial by your peers. can it be argued that it was t5he jury that determined the consequences and the system is just carrying out the people's decision? isnt it in a sense saying that society no longer wants him as a member of society or to even live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakasha Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I'm pretty sure he insinuated that my opinion were that of a contradicted mind, which is anormal. You accused an admin of a personal attack where none was made. If you can't back it up, that's your problem and your own fault - I'm not sneaking off to PM to save face for you. ¨You're running away !¨. No. This has been blown out of proportion and yet I answered all the requests for clarification. If I had attemped to shift out because I did'nt feel like I could back myself up, it would have shown long ago. It's not cool to accuse someone of trying to run away. I clearly meant that this has no place on this thread and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Again, if anything more has to be discussed, it should be on pm. This thread has already suffered enough. If you absolutely want me to lose face for some reason, then go ahead, let's continue on pm and then when we're done, go in here and say ¨The guy lost¨. Now maybe the main point I highlighted in this thread can be addressed: why must a government send a message via the death penalty ? The only answer received was that a government must do so to be just. Does it mean that governments that does'nt send those messages, such as Canada's, are injust ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 It's one of the basic reasons state sanctioned executions do not take place in almost all democratic countrys, and is a very valid point. i find it funny that the US federal government leaves the matter up to the individual states. i think it's kind of a way for washington to avoid the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 It would be nice to be able to just take certain people and put a bullet in their head. But, I have to stand against the death penalty, mostly due to costs, etc. I would like to see criminals do something to help defer the costs of keeping them behind bars. No need to make the labor terrible, just make them do some work. im all for alternatives as well. if society can benifit somehow then lets do it. for example, prison should be made to be self reliant. they should grow their own food, make their tools etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 I reject the right of society to execute me for any crime that I may or may not have commited. I recognise that they have the capacity to overide my rejection. If I am expected to adhere to the rules' date=' laws and conventions of this society, then I expect certain things in recompense. Amongst these are not to be executed for a crime, because of the possibility that I may be innocent of said crime. [/quote'] unfortunately, there are certain things that the government has to do without the consent of the public. also, i think i can establish similarities between your reply and the draft in the US. if needed, the US can begin the draft and make citezens join the military. you may die. that's just the price that you have to pay for enjoying your stay. same as with the death penalty. the negative drawbacks are something we all have to put up with as a price to pay for our way of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 hey does anyone remember that movie??i can't remember whats its called basically this guy going to jail and dies to prove that you can convict an innocent... there was one that came out last year called the life of david gale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 Labelling criminals as an ethnic group is a dangerously thin line to walk, because then putting people in jail starts to become a form of ethnic cleansing when you do that. throw in the stats on ethnicity of people executed/imprisoned and you get some wild conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 The fact of the matter is making the argument that innocent people will be executed is quite possibly the weakest and most ill-conceived argument that can be made against the death penalty. . what would you say is the strongest arguement against capital punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 This is what I've been asking' date=' and not yet had a satisfactory response. We should not start by questioning whether or not arguments against the death penalty are valid, but by questioning why it is necessary to begin with.[/quote'] this one will probably kill any decent point i may have made but here goes: why do they need to be executed? they dont need to be. surely life in prison could be as harsh or worst. so why is it practiced? i think it is more of a political matter than anything else. politicians either want to be seen as sympathetic or tough on crime, or something along those lines. i think that the capital punishment explores the more vengeful side of the law. the majority of americans want it. so guess what? government offricials cant be elected in to office without the people so why fight them? that's a horrible reason to have it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 As such' date=' the primary purpose of any punishment is to execute justice. They do not exist merely to serve as deterrents. This is evidenced by the fact that the punishment for any crime generally increases in severity with the harm it causes. Surely we would all cry foul if our car was stolen and the judge only sentenced the criminal to an overnight stay in prison. But why? Because the criminal has not been punished in accordance with the severity of personal harm he has caused us. That is why lady justice carries a scale. It becomes necessary for societies and governments to quantify the destructiveness or harm caused by a crime, and then agree on punishments which are befitting of the crime. We cannot simply steal a thiefs car or kill a murderer's family and call it justice (though societies in the past have found this acceptable). In the case of a murder, anything less than executing the murderer is reducing the value of human life. That is, if you do not execute the murderer, you are quantifying the victims life in terms of nights spent in prison. What is a person worth? Capital punishment is an effective way of confirming that it's citizens lives are invaluable. Is not the respect for human life the mark of a civilized country? .[/quote'] although i believe that this is the way it must be, i think that this clearly means that legal punishment is retribution, that punishment is vengance. i dont think you can seperate vengance and punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultallica Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 "thou shall not kill" Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17 what about seperation of church and state? in the US anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artorius Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I dont know about other countries but in the uk,our most violent,sadistic,perverted killers go to jail.Were their stay is one of sheer comfort,coloured tv,books,gym,open university degrees etc etc. Hardly the correct punishment for such horrendous crimes,to some life means life,to us the tax payer we pay a small fortune for THEIR privelage of life.Its not economically viable,its sole intent is to remove them from society until they die of natural causes. I wish that capital punishment was reintroduced in the UK..and all the do-gooders who speak up for these psycho's rights should be made to share a cell for a week with them,for educational purposes...and thats if they come out !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I dont know about other countries but in the uk,our most violent,sadistic,perverted killers go to jail.Were their stay is one of sheer comfort,coloured tv,books,gym,open university degrees etc etc.Hardly the correct punishment for such horrendous crimes,to some life means life,to us the tax payer we pay a small fortune for THEIR privelage of life.Its not economically viable,its sole intent is to remove them from society until they die of natural causes. I wish that capital punishment was reintroduced in the UK..and all the do-gooders who speak up for these psycho's rights should be made to share a cell for a week with them,for educational purposes...and thats if they come out !!! It's nice of you to presume that those of us who oppose the death penalty are necessarily in favor of giving convicts lavish amenities. A solution I propose for your problem here is to campaign for prison reform so that TVs and University Degrees are not handed out at your expense. As someone else mentioned in this thread, it'd be great if prisons were self-sustaining. Hell, let NASA do research on self-sufficient communities using prison populations. It'll help out with future manned deep space travel. If I was ever wrongly (or even rightly, but that's doubtful) convicted of a crime, I'd at least be happy to make this contribution to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I wish that capital punishment was reintroduced in the UK..and all the do-gooders who speak up for these psycho's rights should be made to share a cell for a week with them,for educational purposes...and thats if they come out !!! Maybe you could try the death penalty, and then let us know how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 there was one that came out last year called the life of david gale. I watched this movie last night. Pretty good, but very predictable. I realize the jury of peers makes the decision, but the state provides the prosecution and means to perform the execution. They have an interest in making sure the accused is convicted and then executed. Very easy to hide or taint evidence in an atmosphere like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I wish that capital punishment was reintroduced in the UK..and all the do-gooders who speak up for these psycho's rights should be made to share a cell for a week with them' date='for educational purposes...and thats if they come out !!![/quote'] It's not about being a do-gooder (in that sense) per se. It's about enforcing the rights of the individual. For example, I oppose a smoking ban. However, I do not smoke, and would prefer it if noone smoked. These views aren't inconsistent because I recognise that my opinion is just that: an opinion, and that other peoples' differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artorius Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 With respect jakiri you have the rights as a civilian to ask me to stop smoking,and i the right to refuse.However if we are on public transport or in a hospital im forced not to smoke and damn right!! A cold blooded,sadistic killer of children however..in my opinion should lose all rights.They have killed and will continue to kill unless incarcerated.There victims have no rights do they??the b***d took them away. I fail to see some peoples logic when arguing for incarceration over death.The former costs the taxpayer a fortune,the second a cheap affordable means to rid us of these vermin(thats the only classification i can think of because they are not human) Im not advocating just anybody being put to death(a 3 strikes afro-american who gets incacerated for beating his prostitute spouse) im talking of our most devient,serial killers. Im more than content, when some states in America stand up to rest of the nation.And continue to fry them,showing that at least common sense prevails somewhere on this PC planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 With respect jakiri you have the rights as a civilian to ask me to stop smoking,and i the right to refuse.However if we are on public transport or in a hospital im forced not to smoke and damn right!! Public transport, government owned buildings, that's all very well. However, I was referring to the proposed smoking ban in pubs and restaurants. A cold blooded,sadistic killer of children however..in my opinion should lose all rights.They have killed and will continue to kill unless incarcerated.There victims have no rights do they??the b***d took them away. And that is the justification for murder being outlawed in a state based on the rights of the individual; whilst you are expressing your individual right to murder, you are also removing larger, and more multitudinous, rights from the murdered. As the net change is a loss of liberty, it's outlawed. I fail to see some peoples logic when arguing for incarceration over death.The former costs the taxpayer a fortune,the second a cheap affordable means to rid us of these vermin(thats the only classification i can think of because they are not human) Because the argument is not based on economics. For instance, by far the cheapest thing for the state to do is to remove all welfare benefits, but that's hardly the right course of action. Im more than content, when some states in America stand up to rest of the nation.And continue to fry them,showing that at least common sense prevails somewhere on this PC planet. It's nothing to do with Political Correctness, unless you believe that the European Liberal Tradition was all a load of PC gubbins. 200 years ago. Read John Stuart Mill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 JaKiri, you have made my day. I can't believe I had never heard of John Stuart Mill. It's always refreshing to discover that my ignorance knows no bounds. Anyone else interested in some background on him, this seems like a passable link. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/milljs.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I aim to please. Well, mostly I aim to please myself, but that's beside the point. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the US constitution was written by follower of the european liberal tradition. Funny how things like the freedom of man come down to liberalism, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I'm pretty sure he insinuated that my opinion were that of a contradicted mind, which is anormal. No, he said the two positions seemed dichotomous, which they do. Notice how I underline each word separately? That is because they show how your paraphrasing is wrong both individually and together. ¨You're running away !¨. No. I did not accuse you of that. Do not put words in my mouth, especially in arguments that revolve around you saying you didn't put words in someone else's mouth. It's your wacky "reimagining" of the things people say that got us into this mess in the first place. I clearly meant that this has no place on this thread and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Again, if anything more has to be discussed, it should be on pm. This thread has already suffered enough. I agree that this thread is suffering, yet still you keep it going by throwing in more fallacies to be countered. If you absolutely want me to lose face for some reason, then go ahead, let's continue on pm and then when we're done, go in here and say ¨The guy lost¨. It's not that I want you to lose face, but that I don't want you to be able to slag off an admin in public and then weasle your way out of apologising to him, because that sets a bad precedent. As I said, it's your own fault for making those untenable accusations in the first place, so kindly stop trying to pin the role of provocateur on me. Now I have already shown twice why Blike did not make an attack on you, and you have done nothing except ignore the points and repeat the same accusations. Time to let it go. Now maybe the main point I highlighted in this thread can be addressed: why must a government send a message via the death penalty ? The only answer received was that a government must do so to be just. Does it mean that governments that does'nt send those messages, such as Canada's, are injust ? A very good question. Sepultallica: Nine posts in a row is user-hostile dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakasha Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 No, he said the two positions seemed dichotomous, which they do. In this member's mind, it is completely justifiable and morally correct to murder an unborn child [...'] yet it is completely unjustifiable and immoral to murder a serial killer. I was the subject of his unimportant and now infamous post. I did not accuse you of that. Why, yes. I'm not sneaking off to PM to save face for you. You are undoubtly implying that I'm asking to take this off-thread so I don't ¨lose my face¨. I don't want you to be able to slag off an admin in public and then weasle your way out of apologising to him, because that sets a bad precedent. I clearly said that the discussion for this had no place in the thread and it is true. I clearly said that the results of this discussion, if there were, could be re-inserted in thread at your wishes. Thus, I clearly said that taking this discussion off-thread does'nt mean avoiding responsability. No, you clearly have no reason to wish this to continue in thread. So any reply, for the sake on this thread, should go on pm. I agree that this thread is suffering, yet still you keep it going by throwing in more fallacies to be countered. The two sentences do not follow. Each of my post concerning this ridiculous matter were answers to requests of clarification. Mostly from you. And you are again making it seems like it is my fault that the thread is being derailed. No, it is not. I clearly suggested again and again, from the start, that this should be looked at separetly. Also, no, saying that I started this matter does'nt mean that it cannot be true if I claim you to be provocateur. Eh, I never claimed that anyway. Now, let's chill and spell the words of love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now