Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[Belz...]

Would you stop being dishonest for just one moment ?

Translation: You still don't like my answer.

I will take that as a resounding "no".

I can't answer your question the way you've stated it, and I've given the reasons why.

No, you didn't. You went on a tangent about a completely irrelevant detail.

More importantly, why in the Nine Names of Odin do you care what my answer might be?

You addressed me. I care.

Let's invert the question, if execution by tree-shredder actually causes a major reduction in the rape / murder of women, would you say yes to that?

No. See, I can answer questions when they are put to me, despite knowing the implications of my answer.

 

[MontagK505]

I will take that as a resounding "no".

<snip>

No. See, I can answer questions when they are put to me, despite knowing the implications of my answer.

You are free to interpret my responses as you wish.

Do you care about the implications of your answer?

 

[Belz...]

You are free to interpret my responses as you wish.

Yes, you have no responsibility whatsoever in your answers.

Do you care about the implications of your answer?

What does that even mean ?

 

[MontagK505]

Yes, you have no responsibility whatsoever in your answers.

To whom or what should I be responsible to? I'm not aware of violating any forum rules.

 

[Belz...]

To whom or what should I be responsible to? I'm not aware of violating any forum rules.

Yes, that's what I said. You feel you can say whatever you want without having to be clear or relevant to the conversation. It's the other person's job to interpret you properly.

 

[MontagK505]

Yes, that's what I said. You feel you can say whatever you want without having to be clear or relevant to the conversation. It's the other person's job to interpret you properly.

Correct. People who post to this forum can say anything that meets the forum rules. The reader will interpret them in light of their own agenda as they see fit. In fact, they can hardly help doing so. A religious / political fundamentalist type will have their own set of filters. For example: I don't think an atheist is responsible when a hard-core fundamentalist keeps interpreting his/her statements through a "special" filter that the poster is helpless to change.

BTW the moderators are likely to pull the plug on these recent exchanges, because they have little to do with the OP. The OP isn't about you or me.

 

[Belz...]

Correct. People who post to this forum can say anything that meets the forum rules.

That is not what I was saying. I am saying that your post had nothing to do with what I asked, because you went on a total tangent. You are the one who is trying to make this about either you or me.

 

[MontagK505]

That is not what I was saying. I am saying that your post had nothing to do with what I asked, because you went on a total tangent. You are the one who is trying to make this about either you or me.

That is your interpretation of what I said. I am not responsible for how you view my posts!

What I actually said was: The OP isn't about you or me and that the moderators may send this whole exchange off to the boneyard.

 

[Belz...]

That is your interpretation of what I said.

You're confusing my intepretation of what you said with my failure to agree that it has any relevance to what I posted.

But hey, I've been wrong before once or twice. How is it relevant to what I asked ? And don't give me a chronological breakdown of the event. I want to know how I'm wrong about your post being irrelevant.

 

[MontagK505]

You're confusing my intepretation of what you said with my failure to agree that it has any relevance to what I posted.

But hey, I've been wrong before once or twice. How is it relevant to what I asked ? And don't give me a chronological breakdown of the event. I want to know how I'm wrong about your post being irrelevant.

To me, it's not a matter of you being wrong/right. You can come to any conclusion you wish about my posts. You have stated my posts are "dishonest", "irrelevant", "total non-sequitur" etc. You have the right to your opinion. I am not responsible for what you think.

 

[Belz...]

To me, it's not a matter of you being wrong/right.

Well it's important to me. If I'm wrong then maybe I stand to learn something from your post. Of course you're missing several opportunities to make a point, here.

 

[MontagK505]

Well it's important to me. If I'm wrong then maybe I stand to learn something from your post. Of course you're missing several opportunities to make a point, here.

Frankly, I'm not sure if you are right or wrong. Let me slightly expand on this. Issues like gun control, capital punishment, etc. for many people are bigtime hot button items. This means a lot of otherwise rational people have their forebrains short out and from them you get a bunch of knee-jerk reactions whenever these subjects are raised. In some respects, I am not very different. What was done to the girls in the OP is vile. I don't understand what kind of (men) could do this. So my knee-jerk reaction is to regard them as sub-human and get out the tree-shredder. Now, I am fully aware that this is dangerous thinking, so I keep such thoughts in the fantasy compartment were they belong.
In an ideal world we would stop this before it happens. I don't see any way to reliability prevent these events without creating some sort of semi-Orwellian state where we are always having our actions and statements being constantly analyzed for "deviant or dangerous" behavior.
Education can change attitudes, but it doesn't happen very rapidly. Stopping people like the ones in the OP from repeating also becomes a complex issue if you don't like executions. I don't see bringing up issues like this as a non-sequitur. They are certainly related to how we should deal with the things that happened in the OP. If you don't agree, that's fine with me.

 

[Belz...]

Frankly, I'm not sure if you are right or wrong. Let me slightly expand on this. Issues like gun control, capital punishment, etc. for many people are bigtime hot button items. This means a lot of otherwise rational people have their forebrains short out and from them you get a bunch of knee-jerk reactions whenever these subjects are raised. In some respects, I am not very different. What was done to the girls in the OP is vile. I don't understand what kind of (men) could do this. So my knee-jerk reaction is to regard them as sub-human and get out the tree-shredder. Now, I am fully aware that this is dangerous thinking, so I keep such thoughts in the fantasy compartment were they belong.
In an ideal world we would stop this before it happens. I don't see any way to reliability prevent these events without creating some sort of semi-Orwellian state where we are always having our actions and statements being constantly analyzed for "deviant or dangerous" behavior.
Education can change attitudes, but it doesn't happen very rapidly. Stopping people like the ones in the OP from repeating also becomes a complex issue if you don't like executions. I don't see bringing up issues like this as a non-sequitur. They are certainly related to how we should deal with the things that happened in the OP. If you don't agree, that's fine with me.

I'm confused. You talked about forcibly re-educating people, presumably ala Clockwork Orange. That's the part I took issue with because that's not what I was talking about.

All I described as a premise was us beign able to rehabilitate anybody, presumably because our understanding of psychology becomes so awesome that this doesn't present a problem. It's simply a setup to a question. Your answer to that question changes that premise for no apparent reason.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm confused. You talked about forcibly re-educating people, presumably ala Clockwork Orange. That's the part I took issue with because that's not what I was talking about.

All I described as a premise was us beign able to rehabilitate anybody, presumably because our understanding of psychology becomes so awesome that this doesn't present a problem. It's simply a setup to a question. Your answer to that question changes that premise for no apparent reason.

As I recall, your question was, if we could rehabilitate anybody as an alternate to CP, is that acceptable?

I can't answer, because the premise itself raises other issues. What "problem" are you referring to in your statement?
One obvious question, to me, is what choice does the condemned get concerning this "rehabilitation"? Perhaps they don't want to be "rehabilitated". Then what?

 

[Belz...]

the premise itself raises other issues.

No it doesn't. It only does because you have altered the nature of the question by positing that some Orwellian tech is involved, and the slippery slope that comes with it. That is entirely irrelevant to my question, so there.

 

[MontagK505]

No it doesn't. It only does because you have altered the nature of the question by positing that some Orwellian tech is involved, and the slippery slope that comes with it. That is entirely irrelevant to my question, so there.

Any "rehabilitation" technology raises the issue of how it gets applied. For a start, does the condemned get a choice? It's quite possible that some people would prefer to be dead than to meet some committee's criteria of what it means to be rehabilitated. It makes no difference whether its Room 101 or watching Walt Disney movies 16hrs a day (some people might regard the latter as worse than Room 101 ) That's the point I was attempting to make.

 

[Belz...]

Any "rehabilitation" technology raises the issue of how it gets applied.

I agree. The problem is that you pulled that tech out of thin air. I wasn't talking about that or anything like it.

 

[MontagK505]

I agree. The problem is that you pulled that tech out of thin air. I wasn't talking about that or anything like it.

The Orwellian example was meant to illustrate where this could lead. I didn't intend to suggest that it would automatically happen. And I didn't intend to suggest that you were a "Inner Party Leader O'Brian" wannabe. However, history suggests that the temptation to use this outside the law "in an emergency" is something that few politicians can resist. And, many politicians are O'Brian wannabes. You were talking about re-educating people to make them safe. The question still remains, do the subjects of this "re-education" get a choice?

 

[KumarS]

There's a massive difference between a judge sentencing a murderer to death via state-authorised methods under due process of law (Arrest, prosecution, trial, sentencing), and murdering someone and defiling their body.

From the point of view of the victim, there is none.

Death Penalty is NOT Murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person, while the Death Penalty is an extension of the state's monopoly on force. And I doubt there's much "Understanding" for the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer or Andrei Chikatilo (Evil to the core).

This depends on who defines what "murder" is.
Nobody would call his killings as "murder", of course.
So no country or proponent of death penalty would call its killings as "murder".
The Nazis did not call their final solution as murder.
The Soviets did not call the killings of the Moscow Trials as murder.
You do not call death penalty in your country as murder.
But we are still talking about the same thing: killing of an human being
So all people condoning or even supporting the suppression of another human being who is already in prison and not for self-defence, whether they are killer of 8-year olds, gas chamber supporters, death penalty supporters or killers of their wives, after all are not much different from each other

 

[KumarS]

That's certainly a very strong opinion, though I would not go that far. At least the people who support the death penalty do not, you know, actually kill 8 year-olds.

This is why I added a "maybe".
But look it from this point of view: people who murder 8-year olds may have some remote point that make their horrible crime still horrible but at least somehow understandable (maybe they were abused themselves for years..).
People who support death penalty in most case are supporting the death of another human being they know nothing about and without even that small reason.
There is no reason that 8-year-olds suffer more than 18-year olds when put to death

Hence my conclusion

I truly hope you never have any friends or family murdered/raped/tortured/equiv. (I hope that for everyone). I prefer being one of the subhumans who wants revenge and wants it hard on the perpetrator. I make no apology at all for this.

People supporting death penalty because they want revenge are (roughly) at the same moral level of people who murder since they support the same behaviour