Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Matteo Martini]

So, no self-defense, right?

Yes, self-defense too.
Self-defense is when you are in danger of life.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, they make choices. Whether or not those choices are "just" is a matter for debate. However, you agree (in debate) that sometimes the choice to kill is just.

Only in case of self defense and in wars ( or exceptional caases )

Because that is one of the fundamental things about how our society works. We agree to select certain people make decisions and abide by their decisions. However, few if any murder cases are decided by a single judge. They have juries, lawyers etc. Agree or disagree with their decisions, but this is how we define "justice".

" how our society works " may not be a compelling reason for many.
Many people think the society is not working OK.
If that leads to self-made-justice..

I am surprised that you cannot see this. Revenge has nothing to do with "greater good". Judicious, application of the death penalty does. There is a world of difference.

I do not believe in greater good that much.
Common Good " ( or " Greater good " ) are the words used by politicians, to start wars and raise taxes
Words used by communist leaders

That is odd that you would object to that, considering that the your whole argument in the opening post is based on a completely fabricated scenario which has no connection with reality.

But, much much more realistic than the scenario of a guy who cuts the hand to 1000 people

 

[jsfisher]

Yes, self-defense too.
Self-defense is when you are in danger of life.

So, Tricky was right when he said there were exceptions to "never intentionally kill another person". Why did you tell him there were none?

 

[Tricky]

Only in case of self defense and in wars ( or exceptional caases )

So you and I agree that it is sometimes acceptable, but disagree where to draw the lines about when it is acceptable, which is exactly what I've been telling you.

" how our society works " may not be a compelling reason for many.
Many people think the society is not working OK.
If that leads to self-made-justice..

Of course there are problems with our society. We should try to work to fix them as our conscience dictates, which is what you are doing when you advocate eliminating the death penalty. Surely you are not advocating that we should ditch society completely because it is not perfect.

I do not believe in greater good that much.
Common Good " ( or " Greater good " ) are the words used by politicians, to start wars and raise taxes
Words used by communist leaders

I don't think you believe that at all. The opposite of "greater good" is total anarchy, or "I only care about myself". I have a hard time that a person who is outraged by killing others would take either of these positions. You and I simply disagree what "greater good" means. I've tried to explain why I believe my version.

By the way, the logical fallacy you have employed above is called "Poisoning the well". You are not discussing the validity of the concept of "greater good", you are saying that "bad people have used the words". Bad people have used the words "justice" and "fairness" too. Do you think that invalidates those concepts?

But, much much more realistic than the scenario of a guy who cuts the hand to 1000 people

That is debatable. But do you dispute the validity of suggesting hypothetical scenarios? Should people have dismissed your OP simply because it is hypothetical? If you think not, then I cannot see why you won't simply answer the question.

 

[Elind]

Well, it's my opinion that either alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, or weed should be legal. Since I use both alcohol and tobacco, you can guess my position there...

But, no, I've never tried any illegal drug (except for underage alcohol use). Not by choice, mind you, but by simple fact that I was never exposed to it. At all.

Maybe life was more fun in the good old days? When Clinton didn't inhale, I did along with most I knew, and in those days, in the UK, it was worse to get a speeding ticket than have a little weed, or hash.

Oh, well...but we digress. Back to work.

 

[Matteo Martini]

So you and I agree that it is sometimes acceptable, but disagree where to draw the lines about when it is acceptable, which is exactly what I've been telling you.

I think that homicide can be allowed only there are strict and compelling reaasons that, if we do not do it, other lives can be lost
Not the case of death penalty

Of course there are problems with our society. We should try to work to fix them as our conscience dictates, which is what you are doing when you advocate eliminating the death penalty. Surely you are not advocating that we should ditch society completely because it is not perfect.

The point is that, if you advocate death penalty, other people could use this principle to do justice with their own hands.

I don't think you believe that at all. The opposite of "greater good" is total anarchy, or "I only care about myself". I have a hard time that a person who is outraged by killing others would take either of these positions. You and I simply disagree what "greater good" means. I've tried to explain why I believe my version.

I think that many times the greater good is used as a slogan.
Which is the greater good of sending a guy to die, if you can send him in jail for life?

That is debatable. But do you dispute the validity of suggesting hypothetical scenarios? Should people have dismissed your OP simply because it is hypothetical? If you think not, then I cannot see why you won't simply answer the question.

I was just saying taht, in my opinion, your scenario is not realistic.
Just my opinion, though..

 

[Matteo Martini]

So, Tricky was right when he said there were exceptions to "never intentionally kill another person". Why did you tell him there were none?

Post 447:
Never intentionally kill another person, if not in case of self defense..

 

[Tricky]

I think that homicide can be allowed only there are strict and compelling reaasons that, if we do not do it, other lives can be lost
Not the case of death penalty

I disagree. Prisoners can kill other prisoners or guards. And sometimes do.

However, you seem to be setting "death of a single person" as the worst thing that can possibly happen. As bad as that is, there are arguably things that are worse.

The point is that, if you advocate death penalty, other people could use this principle to do justice with their own hands.

This is a fallacy called "slippery slope", meaning that you extrapolate to the worst-case scenario. It's like saying, "If you are allowed to make decisions, other people can make bad decisions."

By agreeing to abide by the rules (laws) of the society you live in, you accept their judgment in this matter. Sure, the system will make mistakes. Funny though, you don't seem to be outraged when the system errs on the behalf of the criminal, which it does much more frequently than the reverse. For every murderer that is executed, there are probably hundreds who are never even apprehended. That's the fault of the system too. It is not a perfect system.

I think that many times the greater good is used as a slogan.

Of course, but I'm not using it that way, so your point is moot and is a prime example of the "Poisoning the well" fallacy.
Do you ever make a decision based on what you perceive as "greater good"?

Which is the greater good of sending a guy to die, if you can send him in jail for life?

For one thing, it is less cruel. Jail with no possibility of parole is a torture for the rest of the person's life.

I was just saying taht, in my opinion, your scenario is not realistic.
Just my opinion, though..

I could spend time working on a scenario that is more realistic, but to what point? The priniciple is the same. There are conceivable cases where you might find that killing someone, even if not to preserve your life, is justifiable. Do you disagree? Is there anything besides human life that you find to be worth defending?

Your scenario is not realistic either, yet people have answered your questions. Why won't you answer mine?

 

[Z]

What you are proposing is completely unrealistic. Read on.

I knew it was all unrealistic from the beginning. It would require, among other things, a vast number of honest people to run the system.

Would you be so kind as to explain:

• Who would pay for that?
• How much would it cost?
• Where would you find the personnel to take care of over 13 million children?

It would require resources that only exist in ideal scenarios, not in real ones. Ideally, those 13 million children would be placed with qualified parents who wanted them; if there were any remainder, they would be managed in state-run facilities, like benign orphanages, and raised up as good citizens by well-trained specialists.

The money for it all, ideally, would be donated by the elite wealthy, who already have too much money to know what to do with it, and could easily afford to support such a system,for the benefit of mankind.

However, this is all a pipe dream, as people, in general, suck.

We are not superior when it comes to either of our senses.

Just a minor nit - either infers a pair; we have considerably more senses than two.

We are not superior when it comes to physical strength. It takes many years before we are capable of taking care of ourselves. We have no natural protection, e.g. shields, nor are we particularly equipped with powerful weapons. No sharp claws, no horns, no poisonous glands.

In fact, we pretty much suck as a species. The one thing we do have, is our brains and intelligence.

And with our brains and intelligence, we have made up for every other lack, and more. That makes us superior.

If you are demonizing yourself, you don't need to accuse me of doing it.

Au contraire: it is useful to point out when one's debate opponent is doing so.

That's nice. However, you cannot use that excuse in this case.

No excuses; only reasons.

It isn't a question of how I would prefer to be addressed. It is a question of why you make such a big fuss over not calling people by their name.

Excuse me? It was you, not I, who made a 'big fuss' over it. I'd be perfectly happy calling you 'Clausy'. However, that seems to offend you, so I'd rather learn how best to not offend you, with regards to your name. So, as a matter of fact, it IS a question of how you would prefer to be addressed.

Ah, I see. People have to be in distress, before you can feel anything for them?

Yes. Unless I come to befriend someone. Even then, I don't feel compassion for them until they are in distress. How could I? Compassion is a sense of another's suffering - if they're not suffering, there's nothing to sense. It's like asking me to look at a red car and ask if I sense blueness. It's a pretty stupid thing to ask. So why would I have compassion for those not in distress, again?

In fact, what feelings should I have for complete strangers? I find apathy is the best default sensation for those I encounter, whom I do not know and who are not suffering.

I know what it means, I was asking what you meant by it. Would a financial transaction qualify as "irresponsible"?

You and I seem to be talking past each other here. Irresponsibility is irresponsibility. You offer a 'financial transaction' as a potentially irresponsible act, but with no context, how can one determine such? Irresponsible behavior is generally self-evident, I think most people would say.

So what is it you're asking? Do you not know what irresponsible behaviors are?

What do you suggest?

Consulting with psychologists and sociologists, and attempting to come up with the most suitable punishment and deterrant for facilitators.

It isn't a question of how you monitor everyone. It is a question of how you select those groups that are monitored.

You seem so focused on this as if I would be the one in charge of it. OK, then, I would monitor those convicted of felonies, those who are members of groups specifically known to engage in criminal behavior (and, yes, that includes Muslims. It would also include many Christian factions, as well). Those suspected of domestic violence, child molestation, abuse, neglect, drug use, etc.

Again, however, that would end up being an overwhelming number of people to monitor continuously. So as a start, I'd limit the list to any case in which a child is in potential danger from the actions of the parent, and suspected terrorists. We're pretty much halfway there.

But, by then, you would be seriously in trouble. It would be too late. Will you still, at that time, advocate such monitoring?

Yes, I will, as well as advocating the cleansing of government from its then-current corrupt elements.

No.

Oh good. It was beginning to look like it, there for a second. I take it, then, you are for a very non-intrusive government, that handles infrastructure management, international trade, etc. but that lets people generally handle themselves however? What's your take on how to treat criminals?

Yes you were. It was when you discovered that it might not be so attractive (to you) that you began making exceptions.

My opening salvo in this battle:

Anyway, IMHO, the death penalty as it currently stands is wrong. Executions well out of public view after years - even decades - of support? Totally wrong. Personally, I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes, when the evidence is as clear as possible. Executions should be done in public (televised, if possible, on major networks), and we should use more gruesome, old-fashioned methods (I'm a fan of the drawn-and-quartered school of execution).

My reasoning is simply this: the number one purpose of the death penalty should be future crime deterrant. As it currently stands, it isn't deterring much at all - because it's hidden away, and is all neat and peaceful. Let the viewers of Fox watch in horror as J. Dahmer is bled to death by leeches! Let the ABC network broadcast images of C. Manson undergoing painful vivisection! It might not help deter the mental cases, but it might well help keep a few more people in line, if they could SEE the results of their potential crimes.

But considering that no one's going to start broadcasting public executions (think about the CHILDREN!), my second choice would be to have some special island prison constructed, in such a way as to be extremely difficult to escape from - and just drop them off and leave them on this island. No more medical care, no providing them meals - let them fend for themselves among their fellow psychopaths. Shoot anything that tries to leave the island with maximum prejudice. The taxpayers cover the cost of transport - probably helicopter fuel and maintenance - , guard salaries and upkeep, ammo for the weapons, and occasional reinforcement of the security that keeps the prisoners inside.

I don't believe that was a call to fascism. Let's see...

I then stepped it up with this:

All kidding aside, though, if I were to write up the legal code, rapists would face public castration (again, televised). Child molesters would be publicly castrated, and then isolated on my island prison with the worst murderers. Thieves... well, theft is, to me, a very different sort of crime. I'm not sure I have the words to explain, but I've always had a somewhat different view on property than I probably should, in that if someone can take what I have, they deserve it and I don't. But of course, society disagrees... I think the tendency to steal can be reformed, but for repeat offenders, life imprisonment works well for them. They deserve life; they're just a threat to the property rights of those who accept society's take on property.

Arson would fall into the murder category, unless it was just property damage, so if no one was hurt, I'd categorize them with the thieves.

You followed by asking me, "So, you take no responsibility for the society you want to create?"

At that point, I was talking about an overhaul in the legal system, not the foundation of a society.

It wasn't until this statement,

The 'rights' of man are whatever the prevalent society see fit to provide man. Frankly, I don't feel much for the rights of criminals. Once someone stoops to committing a crime, they forfeit certain rights automatically.

that CplFerro said,

If there are no rights of man, then political truth is purely existential, political forms arbitrary expressions of bestial will. This is fascism, or worse, and anything deriving from it is not worth debating because the essential principles are antihuman and the results arising from any policies derived from those principles will be antihuman as well.

Though I didn't realize it at the time, it's clear now that he attacked a strawman. I never said there were no rights of man. I said they were whatever the prevalent society sees fit to provide man. And that once a person commits a crime, they should forfeit certain rights automatically - for example, they forfeit their right of freedom (if the crime is serious enough).

CplFerro inferred this as fascism, and my response to that was

Indeed. You understand quite well.

Nevertheless, IMHO, the current implementation of the death penalty does not work, which was my original point - which seems to be missed in the shocked overreaction to my image of an idyllic draconian society.

I'd have been long ago executed in such a society, btw.

Now, when I said he understood quite well, I was being partially sarcastic, and partially referring to his understanding of the pitfalls of fascism. But he, like you, inferred things I did not say. I was discussing an overhaul of the criminal punishment system, and instead you two started about how I was trying to create a fascist society. How strange, that fascism should be defined by the punishments used on its criminals, rather than its treatment of normal citizens! Yet this seems to be the leap that both you and CplFerro made - that because I see criminals as having given up their rights when they committed a crime, that I was promoting fascism.

From the links you gave me, C., I see that I was not, in fact, promoting anything of the sort.

Strawman ignored.

And you decide what the rules are,

NO, the qualified experts would make that decision, not me. Can't you read?

and what the general interests of the population are.

Again, NO. That would be ascertained as always, by polls, voting, etc.

Got any other strawmen to battle?

Wrong. The first mentioning of fascism was by CplFerro, who accurately described your political ideas as fascist.

Since I was only talking about criminal justice reform, I'd say he was actually rather inaccurate.

Yes, I checked. You should make that a habit, too.

Just checked - and the fascism was presented erroneously.

You're right, I should check more often!

I don't. You are the one talking about totalitarian systems with draconian punishments for those groups you don't like.

OK, you're partly right - you didn't. CplFerro did.

ALL I started with was strong punishments for crimes. If criminals are 'groups I don't like', then so be it. But criminals and irresponsible/willfully ignorant people are the only groups I don't like.

Since those groups span all races, creeds, ethnicities, etc.... it's not at all the same thing.

Are you saying there could be people who LIKE criminals and willfully ignorant or irresponsible people? I mean, other than politicians and church leaders.

Equally?

Maybe not equally, but who cares? Treat a criminal as a criminal, not as a white criminal or a black criminal or a Christian criminal or whatever. Why does distribution of criminal behavior matter?

Why do you think you can have it both ways?

Why can't you?

You can catch up here.

What, in your own words, is the point of Huxley's "Brave New World"?

First, let me thank you (honestly) for that link. I'd heard of the book before, but most people have glossed over its content. That summary truly fascinates me, and I now strongly desire a copy to read.

Second, let me preface this opinion with the conditional that, having not read the book for myself, I can only explain the point as covered in the Wiki article.

From the Wiki article, the book was meant as a dark parody of the Utopian novels that were being published at the time. It was meant to show a form of Utopia that sacrificed everything he considered defining of humanity, in exchange for peace and safety.

I can see where he might have found such a utopia dark and frightening, but just from the brief description I read on the Wiki article, it sounds heavenly. I couldn't imagine a better society, especially with the 'savage reservation' bit. Wonderful!

But, of course, such a wonderful society comes at a price that some find terrible - lack of personal identity, lack of innovation, etc. Our existence on this planet seems to be an endless struggle to find a balance between the peace and safety of stagnation, and the innovation and personal uniqueness of continuing danger and strife.

Because it is suppressive of women to ban abortion. Far too many shattered lives because of a lack of abortion.

Is it lack of abortion that has 'shattered lives' - or irresponsible breeding? And are there not parents waiting to adopt newborn children? Why should a birth shatter a woman's life, in this day and age?

Meaning?

Meaning, do you support abortions in all cases? Or are there exceptions you don't support?

Unprotected sex should be avoided, but protection does not guarantee no pregnancies.

Tell me about it. My wife was on the shot when she came up pregnant with our daughter. AND I was using condoms. Apparently, she was meant to be born.

Destroy the life of what?

Of the embryo, of course. Whether we consider it a person or not, it's alive.

Generally, the line is drawn when the fetus can survive on its own. That line has, due to science and technology, moved, so the chance of survival is bigger at an earlier age today.

And why there? Is an elderly person no longer a person when it cannot survive on its own? How about people with pacemakers, artificial hearts, etc? Are they not people?

It's an arbitrary line, and it makes no sense.

Abortion is never something we should take lightly. It is always detrimental to the woman.

A few women seem to think that's not true, but I won't quibble on that point.

To suggest that women should be breeding machines for medical experiments is equivalent to suggest that the medical experiments done by Nazi doctors in the death camps were acceptable.

And if that's what I was suggesting, you might be right. But I'm not saying that women should be breeding machines for medical research - I'm asking, if the fetus is unwanted anyway, what's the difference if we kill it and toss it in the trash, or remove it and raise it in a vat for medical research? There's no comparsion to the experiments done by Nazi doctors. If we agree that abortion is OK, because it's not a person, then why should we care what becomes of the biomatter expelled thusly?? Isn't it just some meaningless tissue at that point?

Indeed. And, as you have seen, I have also disappointed you gravely here. Does this, in any way, restore your faith in humans, even a little bit?

It restores my faith in you, for what that's worth. Thank you.

Look, it is not my problem if what you propose is pure fascism. That you don't recognize it as such is only testament of your ignorance - not my attempt of portraying you as a fascist.

Actually, what I proposed isn't fascism. The links you provided me proved as much. What I proposed was a strict criminal justice system.

From the article:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, collectivism, corporatism, populism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.

If, by 'state' we mean 'the safety and general well being of the population', then the first bit is true - however, I never mentioned forging a type of national unity, based on ethnic, cultural, racial, or other attributes; in fact, I've been pretty staunchly against paying ANY attention to those attributes. Nor was my particular interest - a more strict and public justice system - proposing the implementation of many of the attributes listed above.

If we were to use this as an example, then the fact that nationalism, anti-communism, and corporatism in America makes it a fascist state, too... is that the case?

Take your strawman out of this argument, please.

You will find a lot of answers, once you begin educating yourself about what fascism is. Hopefully, you will be horrified, when you discover just what it is you have been advocating so strongly.

Since I haven't been advocating fascism, this does not apply. But thanks for the link - I'm glad to know I wasn't promoting anything of the sort.

 

[jsfisher]

Post 447:
Never intentionally kill another person, if not in case of self defense..

Yes, I saw this post. My point was that you have made contradictory statements regarding exceptions. However, it seems clear you recognize that there are exceptions.

Now, then, if exceptions exist for an individual killing another individual, then would not the same exceptions exist for society killing an individual? If a person may kill in self defense, then society can kill in self defense, too, right?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, I saw this post. My point was that you have made contradictory statements regarding exceptions. However, it seems clear you recognize that there are exceptions.

Now, then, if exceptions exist for an individual killing another individual, then would not the same exceptions exist for society killing an individual? If a person may kill in self defense, then society can kill in self defense, too, right?

Yes, but death penalty is not self-defense, as you can send the guy in prison for life.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I disagree. Prisoners can kill other prisoners or guards. And sometimes do.

You can put inmates in isolated part of the prison, with no contact with knifes, forks, etc.
I am not talking about the usual prison..

However, you seem to be setting "death of a single person" as the worst thing that can possibly happen. As bad as that is, there are arguably things that are worse.

Debatable

This is a fallacy called "slippery slope", meaning that you extrapolate to the worst-case scenario. It's like saying, "If you are allowed to make decisions, other people can make bad decisions."

No.
"If you are allowed to make decisions on life and death, other people can make decisions on life and death."

By agreeing to abide by the rules (laws) of the society you live in, you accept their judgment in this matter.

Did I ( we ) have ever agreed?
When?

Sure, the system will make mistakes. Funny though, you don't seem to be outraged when the system errs on the behalf of the criminal, which it does much more frequently than the reverse. For every murderer that is executed, there are probably hundreds who are never even apprehended. That's the fault of the system too. It is not a perfect system.

As they have probably not being caught.

Of course, but I'm not using it that way, so your point is moot and is a prime example of the "Poisoning the well" fallacy.
Do you ever make a decision based on what you perceive as "greater good"?

As I said, I do not believe so much in the " greater good ", generally speaking.
I believe in practical examples..

For one thing, it is less cruel. Jail with no possibility of parole is a torture for the rest of the person's life.

If that happens to you, I do not think you would choose to be sent to death, you would choose to stay in prison for life ( without parole )

I could spend time working on a scenario that is more realistic, but to what point? The priniciple is the same. There are conceivable cases where you might find that killing someone, even if not to preserve your life, is justifiable. Do you disagree? Is there anything besides human life that you find to be worth defending?

I can not think of anything.
Maybe in wars, there may be occasions, where you have to kill someone, but, that would be for defending another life too.
So, I can not think of any other examples.

Your scenario is not realistic either, yet people have answered your questions. Why won't you answer mine?

My scenario is quite realistic.
People are proone to do self-defense all the time.
All the time criminals are acquitted as there are not enough proofs against them, but the people who sued the criminal, are more than certain that the criminal was guilty.
Quite a common situation.
Would they be allowed to take jutice in their hands?
If not, why not?

 

[jsfisher]

Yes, but death penalty is not self-defense, as you can send the guy in prison for life.

Sure, it can be. Murder in self defense is the taking of a life when it is reasonable to believe your own life is in serious peril. Would you not agree with that? Well, if it were reasonable to believe a convicted murderer is likely to kill again--a prison guard or another inmate, for example--wouldn't capital punishment be justified as a form of self defense by society?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Sure, it can be. Murder in self defense is the taking of a life when it is reasonable to believe your own life is in serious peril. Would you not agree with that? Well, if it were reasonable to believe a convicted murderer is likely to kill again--a prison guard or another inmate, for example--wouldn't capital punishment be justified as a form of self defense by society?

Yes.
But I believe there are ways to prevent inmates to kill guards / other inmates.
Especially secluded parisons may be an answer.
Of course, success may not be 100%, but, very close to.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes.
But I believe there are ways to prevent inmates to kill guards / other inmates.
Especially secluded parisons may be an answer.
Of course, success may not be 100%, but, very close to.

Cannot the same be said for a person killing in self defense? Perhaps we should give everyone an armed escort as their constant companion. Of course, success may not be 100%, but very close to.

We can always invent new precautions to solve any problem in hindsight, although not all the solutions (if I can call them that) qualify as feasible.


By the way, were an armed escort to kill someone in defense of the escortee, that would not be self defense. Would this be yet another justified exception to the thou shalt not kill dictum?

 

[Mobyseven]

So your answer is, "Don't kill him! Just lock him away from any human contact for the rest of his life."

That's far more humane.

 

[Tricky]

You can put inmates in isolated part of the prison, with no contact with knifes, forks, etc.
I am not talking about the usual prison.

Still, it could happen. And if it happens even once and an innocent person dies, that's enough reason to scrap the idea, right? Well, that's the argument you're making against the death penalty. One innocent death is too many. This problem will always rear its head when you argue in absolutes.

Debatable

Then debate. Please answer my question.

No.
"If you are allowed to make decisions on life and death, other people can make decisions on life and death."

Incorrect. The judicial system making life-and-death decisions is not the same as an individual making life-and-death decisions. It is a much more regulated process.

Did I ( we ) have ever agreed?
When?

Yes, we have agreed that it is sometimes acceptable to kill another human. The one example you have agreed with me on is self-defense. Now I'm trying to build on that one agreement. Killing in self defense, or defense of family is one example of killing for "the greater good", in this case, the greater good is that, although we don't like to have anybody die, it is better for the attacker to die than an innocent person. I've been trying to demonstrate that the principle of "greater good" can be applied in other situations as well.

As for living by the laws of society, I assume you do. If you're not, then you can be justifiably locked up or punished in accordance with the laws of that society. This is the social contract.

As they have probably not being caught.

Exactly. Why do you seem less outraged by a murderer going free than by a murderer dying for his crime?

As I said, I do not believe so much in the " greater good ", generally speaking.
I believe in practical examples..

Oh? Then you only believe in good for the individual? If you don't believe in "greater good" then why are you concerned about anybody but yourself dying? Your dislike for the term "greater good" is outweighing practicality.

If that happens to you, I do not think you would choose to be sent to death, you would choose to stay in prison for life ( without parole )

Maybe not. The will to live is a strong instinct. That doesn't mean that euthanasia isn't less cruel. Giving somebody what they want isn't necessarily the same thing as empathy. They shoot horses, don't they?

I can not think of anything.
Maybe in wars, there may be occasions, where you have to kill someone, but, that would be for defending another life too. So, I can not think of any other examples.

No, wars are not necessarily about defending life. They are about defending your way of life, or, if depending on point of view, imposing your way of life on others. If preserving life was all that mattered, then if someone threatens your country, you should simply surrender, since that would save lives. Obviously, this is ridiculous. But this is a great example of what jsfisher was talking about. Self defense can mean defense of one's society or one's country. It can also mean defense of one's society by enacting and enforcing laws that will protect society from killers.

My scenario is quite realistic.
People are proone to do self-defense all the time.

Not in the way you have set up the scenario. It is quite outlandish.

All the time criminals are acquitted as there are not enough proofs against them, but the people who sued the criminal, are more than certain that the criminal was guilty.
Quite a common situation.

Yep. It is decided in court. So why don't you allow the courts to handle life-and-death issues too? It is not perfect, but it is more fair than most ways.

Would they be allowed to take jutice in their hands?
If not, why not?

Because the laws prevent them from it. Justice is administered by courts, not by individuals. The society you live in has determined that this is for the greater good.

You seem to be simultaneously arguing that you don't believe in "greater good" as decided by the legal system, and that people shouldn't take the law into their own hands. Your position appears to be internally contradictory.

 

[CFLarsen]

I knew it was all unrealistic from the beginning. It would require, among other things, a vast number of honest people to run the system.

It would require resources that only exist in ideal scenarios, not in real ones. Ideally, those 13 million children would be placed with qualified parents who wanted them; if there were any remainder, they would be managed in state-run facilities, like benign orphanages, and raised up as good citizens by well-trained specialists.

The money for it all, ideally, would be donated by the elite wealthy, who already have too much money to know what to do with it, and could easily afford to support such a system,for the benefit of mankind.

However, this is all a pipe dream, as people, in general, suck.

Your system isn't unrealistic because it would require a vast number of honest people, but because it is unrealistic to forcibly remove at least 13 million children from their families.

And with our brains and intelligence, we have made up for every other lack, and more. That makes us superior.

Only when you combine that with our development over the past few thousand years. You put yourself in the middle of the savanna with nothing, and you are lucky to live until the next day.

Au contraire: it is useful to point out when one's debate opponent is doing so.

It cannot be an accusation.

Excuse me? It was you, not I, who made a 'big fuss' over it. I'd be perfectly happy calling you 'Clausy'. However, that seems to offend you, so I'd rather learn how best to not offend you, with regards to your name. So, as a matter of fact, it IS a question of how you would prefer to be addressed.

It is also a question why you don't even want to admit that you make such a big fuss over not calling people by their name. Maybe your general lack of empathy towards other humans has something to do with it.

Yes. Unless I come to befriend someone. Even then, I don't feel compassion for them until they are in distress. How could I? Compassion is a sense of another's suffering - if they're not suffering, there's nothing to sense. It's like asking me to look at a red car and ask if I sense blueness. It's a pretty stupid thing to ask. So why would I have compassion for those not in distress, again?

In fact, what feelings should I have for complete strangers? I find apathy is the best default sensation for those I encounter, whom I do not know and who are not suffering.

That is a scary and downright inhumane outlook. Humans mean nothing to you, unless they are in pain. Then, you start noticing them. Otherwise, they don't exist to you.

You and I seem to be talking past each other here. Irresponsibility is irresponsibility. You offer a 'financial transaction' as a potentially irresponsible act, but with no context, how can one determine such? Irresponsible behavior is generally self-evident, I think most people would say.

So what is it you're asking? Do you not know what irresponsible behaviors are?

My point is that a financial transaction can be "irresponsible", but it isn't obvious from the start. If people invest in something that turns out to be a dud, is that "irresponsible"? If they invest in high risk stocks, is that "irresponsible"?

Consulting with psychologists and sociologists, and attempting to come up with the most suitable punishment and deterrant for facilitators.

I am asking what you suggest as punishment for a facilitator.

You seem so focused on this as if I would be the one in charge of it. OK, then, I would monitor those convicted of felonies, those who are members of groups specifically known to engage in criminal behavior (and, yes, that includes Muslims. It would also include many Christian factions, as well).

Why all Muslims, but only some Christians?

Those suspected of domestic violence, child molestation, abuse, neglect, drug use, etc.

Which groups? Be specific.

Again, however, that would end up being an overwhelming number of people to monitor continuously. So as a start, I'd limit the list to any case in which a child is in potential danger from the actions of the parent,

We are back to your huge group of at least 13 million children, then. At least 20% of families.

and suspected terrorists. We're pretty much halfway there.

What suspected terrorists? Muslims?

Yes, I will, as well as advocating the cleansing of government from its then-current corrupt elements.

I don't believe you. I don't believe that you will still think it is such a good idea to be monitored and found guilty of a crime, even though you were innocent.

Oh good. It was beginning to look like it, there for a second. I take it, then, you are for a very non-intrusive government, that handles infrastructure management, international trade, etc. but that lets people generally handle themselves however?

What's your take on how to treat criminals?

We are talking about your proposed system.

Now, when I said he understood quite well, I was being partially sarcastic, and partially referring to his understanding of the pitfalls of fascism. But he, like you, inferred things I did not say. I was discussing an overhaul of the criminal punishment system, and instead you two started about how I was trying to create a fascist society. How strange, that fascism should be defined by the punishments used on its criminals, rather than its treatment of normal citizens! Yet this seems to be the leap that both you and CplFerro made - that because I see criminals as having given up their rights when they committed a crime, that I was promoting fascism.

Ah. You were merely being sarcastic.

Of course you were.

From the links you gave me, C., I see that I was not, in fact, promoting anything of the sort.

Strawman ignored.

You may have read the links, but you have not understood the content.

NO, the qualified experts would make that decision, not me. Can't you read?

Based on the rules you set up.

Again, NO. That would be ascertained as always, by polls, voting, etc.

Got any other strawmen to battle?

No, no, no. We are talking about how you would like society to be. Not what the people would like.

Since I was only talking about criminal justice reform, I'd say he was actually rather inaccurate.

Are you that naive to think that such draconic changes can take place in society as it is today?

Just checked - and the fascism was presented erroneously.

You're right, I should check more often!

I can understand why you are so reluctant to present yourself as a full-blown fascist. But that's exactly what your favorite society is.

OK, you're partly right - you didn't. CplFerro did.

Can't you even be honest about this? If it wasn't me who brought up fascism, then I am not just "partly" right.

ALL I started with was strong punishments for crimes. If criminals are 'groups I don't like', then so be it. But criminals and irresponsible/willfully ignorant people are the only groups I don't like.

Since those groups span all races, creeds, ethnicities, etc.... it's not at all the same thing.

Your own words stand.

Are you saying there could be people who LIKE criminals and willfully ignorant or irresponsible people? I mean, other than politicians and church leaders.

We are talking about your proposed system.

Maybe not equally, but who cares? Treat a criminal as a criminal, not as a white criminal or a black criminal or a Christian criminal or whatever. Why does distribution of criminal behavior matter?

You care: You are the one who wants to minimize crime. Therefore, you must do what will reduce crime the most: Since criminal behavior does not span all races, cultures, ethnicities, etc. equally, you must reduce crime the most by punishing those groups with the most crimes the most.

Is there not a proportionally higher crime rate among blacks than whites in the United States?

Why can't you?

You can't have it both ways.

First, let me thank you (honestly) for that link. I'd heard of the book before, but most people have glossed over its content. That summary truly fascinates me, and I now strongly desire a copy to read.

Second, let me preface this opinion with the conditional that, having not read the book for myself, I can only explain the point as covered in the Wiki article.

From the Wiki article, the book was meant as a dark parody of the Utopian novels that were being published at the time. It was meant to show a form of Utopia that sacrificed everything he considered defining of humanity, in exchange for peace and safety.

I can see where he might have found such a utopia dark and frightening, but just from the brief description I read on the Wiki article, it sounds heavenly. I couldn't imagine a better society, especially with the 'savage reservation' bit. Wonderful!

But, of course, such a wonderful society comes at a price that some find terrible - lack of personal identity, lack of innovation, etc. Our existence on this planet seems to be an endless struggle to find a balance between the peace and safety of stagnation, and the innovation and personal uniqueness of continuing danger and strife.

But you don't find that price terrible. In fact, you cannot imagine a better society than Huxley's Brave New World.

That Huxley wrote it as a satire went completely over your head.

Is it lack of abortion that has 'shattered lives' - or irresponsible breeding? And are there not parents waiting to adopt newborn children? Why should a birth shatter a woman's life, in this day and age?

It still does. Young age, poverty, social pressure - these are still factors, even in this day and age. If you don't think so, you should get out in real life.

Meaning, do you support abortions in all cases? Or are there exceptions you don't support?

I don't know what you mean by "all cases".

Tell me about it. My wife was on the shot when she came up pregnant with our daughter. AND I was using condoms. Apparently, she was meant to be born.

Fortunately for you all, you had the resources to keep the child. Not all do.

If you had been piss-poor, or way too young to handle a child, would you have considered abortion?

Of the embryo, of course.

An 8 week old embryo is hardly a person.

I have no problems with that. Do you?

Whether we consider it a person or not, it's alive.

So is your appendix.

And why there? Is an elderly person no longer a person when it cannot survive on its own? How about people with pacemakers, artificial hearts, etc? Are they not people?

It's an arbitrary line, and it makes no sense.

The earlier age of the fetus. Read what I say.

A few women seem to think that's not true, but I won't quibble on that point.

That may be. I have never met a woman who had an abortion who thought it was a walk in the park.

And if that's what I was suggesting, you might be right. But I'm not saying that women should be breeding machines for medical research - I'm asking, if the fetus is unwanted anyway, what's the difference if we kill it and toss it in the trash, or remove it and raise it in a vat for medical research? There's no comparsion to the experiments done by Nazi doctors. If we agree that abortion is OK, because it's not a person, then why should we care what becomes of the biomatter expelled thusly?? Isn't it just some meaningless tissue at that point?

You have a short memory of what you have argued:

Or raised them to various ages in vats and stored them for possible future medical use?

That is not merely "meaningless tissue", is it? You are, in fact, talking about women being breeding machines for medical experiments.

It restores my faith in you, for what that's worth. Thank you.

But not humans in general?

If, by 'state' we mean 'the safety and general well being of the population', then the first bit is true - however, I never mentioned forging a type of national unity, based on ethnic, cultural, racial, or other attributes; in fact, I've been pretty staunchly against paying ANY attention to those attributes. Nor was my particular interest - a more strict and public justice system - proposing the implementation of many of the attributes listed above.

If we were to use this as an example, then the fact that nationalism, anti-communism, and corporatism in America makes it a fascist state, too... is that the case?

Take your strawman out of this argument, please.

Again, you cannot radically change on part of society and expect the rest to remain unchanged. It is immensely naive to think so.

Since I haven't been advocating fascism, this does not apply. But thanks for the link - I'm glad to know I wasn't promoting anything of the sort.

Sadly, you still find fascism very attractive.

 

[Z]

Your system isn't unrealistic because it would require a vast number of honest people, but because it is unrealistic to forcibly remove at least 13 million children from their families.

From this alone I can ascertain that you refused to read past the first sentence of my reply.

Only when you combine that with our development over the past few thousand years. You put yourself in the middle of the savanna with nothing, and you are lucky to live until the next day.

You're really not thinking before you reply, are you? How did we get through that development over the past few thousand years, if we didn't survive the initial conditions first?

And I've survived in the middle of the desert for three days with nothing (except underwear) in June in California, fyi. Never underestimate the power of the human brain.

It cannot be an accusation.

Whatever. You attempted to demonize me. Leave that to me.

It is also a question why you don't even want to admit that you make such a big fuss over not calling people by their name. Maybe your general lack of empathy towards other humans has something to do with it.

Or maybe it's your own preoccupation with a minor quibble of no importance that turned this into a big fuss, Clausy.

That is a scary and downright inhumane outlook. Humans mean nothing to you, unless they are in pain. Then, you start noticing them. Otherwise, they don't exist to you.

And I find your outlook confusing and, frankly, quite unskeptical. How can you have feelings about perfect strangers? It makes no sense at all. Until I have cause to like or dislike someone, why is it inhumane to remain apathetic about them? Are you honestly telling me you feel emotions over every passer-by, every member of the studio audience on television, every person in a crowded mall or concert? How? How on earth do you not go insane caring about every stranger on earth?

My point is that a financial transaction can be "irresponsible", but it isn't obvious from the start. If people invest in something that turns out to be a dud, is that "irresponsible"? If they invest in high risk stocks, is that "irresponsible"?

Well, it certainly helps to explain some context. Of course a financial transaction can be irresponsible. It can also be highly responsible or irrelevant or necessary. But without context, there's no way to address the issue.

Now, investing in something that turns out to be a dud isn't irresponsible unless the people had indications - or the ability to learn for themselves - that it was a dud. If they invest in high risk stocks, we still have the question of context - will such investment actually hurt them, or are they financially well-off enough to absorb a bad loss? Are they risking their entire life's savings on this investment? Context - very important.

I am asking what you suggest as punishment for a facilitator.

And I am recommending consulting with psychologists and sociologists, and attempting to come up with the most suitable punishment and deterrant for facilitators.

Why all Muslims, but only some Christians?

Truly, I should have said, some factions of Muslims, as well. My mistake.

Which groups? Be specific.

Those suspected of domestic violence, child molestation, abuse, neglect, drug use, etc.

We are back to your huge group of at least 13 million children, then. At least 20% of families.

But far more feasible to monitor than to remove the children outright, correct?

What suspected terrorists? Muslims?

ANY suspected terrorists. Which, in the U.S., would include a lot of angry white people, too. Obviously.

I don't believe you. I don't believe that you will still think it is such a good idea to be monitored and found guilty of a crime, even though you were innocent.

That's not what you asked. You asked if some group I belonged to was targetted - say, if the Gov't went after all Wiccans. In which case, I'd be guilty of a crime, though the crime itself might be unjust.

And I really have no concern for what you believe. Your beliefs have been regularly proven wrong.

We are talking about your proposed system.

No, we are talking about many issues. Are you afraid to answer a simple question? I might lose my faith in you again...

You may have read the links, but you have not understood the content.

No, I'm afraid it's you who apparently haven't understood the content - either of the links you provided, or of what I was talking about.

My words stand and are clear. You pulled a common gaff of labelling an opponent a 'fascist' (or, to be more accurate, continuing to use that label) when it didn't apply. Man up and admit you were in error.

Based on the rules you set up.

Wrong again. This is becoming boring.

No, no, no. We are talking about how you would like society to be. Not what the people would like.

You really need to step back, take a breath, and read what was written. Why does 'leaving it to the experts' work for you, but not for anyone else? Stop being a hypocrite and a fool, Clausy.

Are you that naive to think that such draconic changes can take place in society as it is today?

Are you so sheltered as to think that they haven't before, in some ways? I think you'd have said the same thing decades ago, if I had declared that one day you would be unable to get a license until you graduated high school, and could lose it again for driving drunk; or that seatbelt laws could be enforced with high tickets; or that it would one day be possible to lose your kids for spanking them.

Laws have grown more draconic over time, not more lax. ENFORCEMENT has gone lax in some areas, but not the laws themselves.

Think about it - no smoking AT ALL in public areas and businesses? Very draconic, really.

Don't be so naive yourself.

I can understand why you are so reluctant to present yourself as a full-blown fascist. But that's exactly what your favorite society is.

Wrong again.

Can't you even be honest about this? If it wasn't me who brought up fascism, then I am not just "partly" right.

But it's you who continued it, and are STILL arguing it. So while you're right that you didn't bring it up, you're darned sure attempting to carry it forward.

Even after being demonstrated as incorrect.

Your own words stand.

Yes, they do. And they exonerate me from charges of fascism.

We are talking about your proposed system.

No, we're talking all over the place. So man up and answer the question, Larsen. (That's two, by the way. Not looking good.)

You care: You are the one who wants to minimize crime. Therefore, you must do what will reduce crime the most: Since criminal behavior does not span all races, cultures, ethnicities, etc. equally, you must reduce crime the most by punishing those groups with the most crimes the most.

You don't punish the group itself, only the criminals. You completely ignore the group.

Or are you trying to tell me it's better to only punish a percent of criminals from each 'race group', to be fair?

Criminals should be punished equally regardless of race, religion, etc. Those shouldn't even be determining factors at all.

Is there not a proportionally higher crime rat among blacks than whites in the United States?

So? Why does that matter?

Yes, more blacks will end up punished than whites. More blacks are committing crimes than whites. But we're not punishing innocent blacks and leaving guilty whites alone, are we? We're talking about punishing the guilty, regardless of color.

It's like the whole college SAT thing - if more blacks fail than whites, the right answer isn't to lower the standard; the answer is simply that blacks in general aren't trying hard enough. Why lower the standard to reflect one race but not another? Ignore such irrelevant issues entirely, and treat all people equally.

You can't have it both ways.

That makes no sense at all.

So you're saying, a society has to be equally as bad or as good when dealing with criminals and punishment, as it does when dealing with issues of racial equality and harmony?

WTF?

The U.S. does a fairly good job when dealing with issues of equality. Not perfect, but fairly good. It's on the right track, generally. But when it comes to crime and punishment, it's doing absolutely terribly.

So explain to me why a society can't have both good equality among people AND an effective system of punishment for criminals?

But you don't find that price terrible. In fact, you cannot imagine a better society than Huxley's Brave New World.

That Huxley wrote it as a satire went completely over your head.

No it didn't. Did I or did I not say he wrote it as a dark parody?

Just because HE intended it as satire doesn't mean that everyone on earth should feel as he does. And just because YOU agree with him does not mean that his ideas are any more or less reasonable.

It still does. Young age, poverty, social pressure - these are still factors, even in this day and age. If you don't think so, you should get out in real life.

Social pressure should be irrelevant, though I agree it is still a problem. The other two are irrelevant, considering a child can be given up for adoption, and there are always reasonable medical options to consider for prenatal care.

Besides, if they're pregnant by their own actions (i.e. not rape or some other incident), then they've chosen that as a potential outcome. Even if they used protection. And they should have to see it through.

Responsibility.

Oh, wait, you don't understand what that is, right?

I don't know what you mean by "all cases".

Why do you have to have everything spelled out for you? You can't possibly be so uneducated.

Fortunately for you all, you had the resources to keep the child. Not all do.

That's why adoption services are so nice.

If you had been piss-poor, or way too young to handle a child, would you have considered abortion?

Nope. Our first pregnancy, my wife and I were scrounging the pavement for pennies to buy ramen to eat. She was barely 18, and I was 20. Our rent was overdue three months, our electricity had been cut off four months prior, and we were stealing power from an outlet used by the groundskeeper for his hedge trimmer to run a small burner.

Abortion never crossed our minds.

An 8 week old embryo is hardly a person.

In your opinion.

I have no problems with that. Do you?

Yes. I do. Once a sperm cell and egg have successfully united, and that egg has begun normal growth and development, it is a person. That it cannot survive unsupported is irrelevant - many sick and elderly have that problem too. That it has no brain yet - irrelevant. We've treated other brainless people as people, once they've been born. That it might yet be naturally auto-aborted? Irrelevant - people might die at any time from any cause... yet we still treat them as people.

Yet all these arguments suddenly get reversed if we try to take that embryo and do medical experiments on it - or raise it in a vat to use for parts or research. Why? When did it suddenly become a person?

So is your appendix.

And I certainly don't want a healthy appendix aborted, either. You might have scored a point, though, had you said 'foreskin'.

But an appendix, no matter what, isn't going to develop into a living person. A fetus may.

The earlier age of the fetus. Read what I say.

OK, Pot. Semantics isn't going to save you.

That may be. I have never met a woman who had an abortion who thought it was a walk in the park.

I have - a most unpleasant woman, at that. Frankly, the world is better off if that type of woman doesn't breed.

You have a short memory of what you have argued:

I know what I argued. You have some problems with reading comprehension.

(Otherwise, you'd know what 'All cases' means.)

That is not merely "meaningless tissue", is it? You are, in fact, talking about women being breeding machines for medical experiments.

No, in fact, I'm not. Read what I wrote.

But not humans in general?

Still not sure you count as 'human'....

Again, you cannot radically change on part of society and expect the rest to remain unchanged. It is immensely naive to think so.

And it is immensly pessimistic and inhumane to think otherwise.

Sadly, you still find fascism very attractive.

Wrong yet again. But I understand - having been proven wrong on the fascism issue, you have to nurse your bruised ego somehow. I don't hold it against you.

But you could answer those two questions you skipped over... or do I need to start a 'Larsen List' for you?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Cannot the same be said for a person killing in self defense?

This is why I am not against killing for self-defense

Perhaps we should give everyone an armed escort as their constant companion. Of course, success may not be 100%, but very close to.

If that were feasible, why not?