The Death Penalty

[Snorri1234]

so you want him to go through no pain after all of the suffering that he caused!?!?!?

Uhm, he would still die in the end.... The choice is either killing him instantly, or letting him rot in prison till he croaks.

[reminisco]

Why should you have that right?

eye for a motherfucking eye.

That's not very rational.

but it is, if you make a distinction between murder and killing. soldiers in combat, if killing enemy combatants, are killing, not murdering. if they slaughter unarmed prisoners, on the other hand, are committing murder. or, if they kill a person who poses an imminent threat to kill again, they are preventing harm to other people -- say in the case when a bomb factory gets bombed.

so, looking at it that way, it's completely rational, in the hypothetical i detailed above, concerning killing someone who murdered my brother in cold blood, to kill the waste of egg and sperm that committed the murder.

it is the murderer who is not rational. not the one who kills the murderer. unless, of course, that killer of the murderer does it for irrational gain.

that is why we have a system of courts and appeals, and a jury of one's peers.

it is not *right* to take the law into one's own hands, but if the government does not hold up it's part of the social contract (consult Locke), the people themselves have a right to do the job.

the government's primary responsibility is to protect us. and thus, in the case of a murder, ought to mete out justice where it is due.

this makes perfect rational sense.

furthermore, to address the idea that one could lock up Saddam Hussein for life, and that would suffice, as he would no longer hurt anyone....

would you be willing to foot the bill for that? granted, we've already paid trillions for the Iraq War, but consider how much it costs to maintain prisoners in the US alone. and think about why I should ever, EVER EVER be compelled to pay to support, for life, a waste of egg and sperm that may have murdered my brother.

rather than having the satisfaction of knowing that my money (taxes) were used in the interest of securing justice.

because at least then, even if the appeals cost more than the life sentence, if the motherfucker got executed, i'd know the money was not spent in vain.

[reminisco]

oh, and we should think of money in terms of toil, and effort. after all, i'm assuming all of us on here must work for our pay. and then, beyond that, our time.

so my life is given to support the life of a murderer?

i don't think so. it's clearly very rational to hasten the meeting of those dirty shitbirds with God, so he can deliver the real judgement.

and if there is no God, then at least there's one less shitbird.

[Snorri1234]

the government's primary responsibility is to protect us. and thus, in the case of a murder, ought to mete out justice where it is due.

Protecting can be done by life in prison.

furthermore, to address the idea that one could lock up Saddam Hussein for life, and that would suffice, as he would no longer hurt anyone....

would you be willing to foot the bill for that? granted, we've already paid trillions for the Iraq War, but consider how much it costs to maintain prisoners in the US alone. and think about why I should ever, EVER EVER be compelled to pay to support, for life, a waste of egg and sperm that may have murdered my brother.

rather than having the satisfaction of knowing that my money (taxes) were used in the interest of securing justice.

Justice is already secured when the suspect is locked up for life. And when you pay more to kill him than to keep him alive for the rest of his miserable existence, I'm strongly in favour of keeping him alife. I don't care what he did and how, this is not about revenge.

because at least then, even if the appeals cost more than the life sentence, if the motherfucker got executed, i'd know the money was not spent in vain.

The extra money spent is in vain. The purpose here isn't revenge. It's about what is best for society. And what's best for society is spending less money while making sure the criminal can't harm society. The end result of the death penalty and life in prison are basically the same.

[The Weird One]

so you want him to go through no pain after all of the suffering that he caused!?!?!?

Uhm, he would still die in the end.... The choice is either killing him instantly, or letting him rot in prison till he croaks.

whoever said I wanted the bastard to die painlessly?

[Snorri1234]

so you want him to go through no pain after all of the suffering that he caused!?!?!?

Uhm, he would still die in the end.... The choice is either killing him instantly, or letting him rot in prison till he croaks.

whoever said I wanted the bastard to die painlessly?

Well.....torture is generally filed under the cruel & unusual category. (Unless ofcourse you're doing it TO PROTECT YOUR COUNTRY FROM TRRISTS!)

Quite simply, what you're letting your stance be influenced by is emotion and anger. I understand that, and I feel the same way actually about it. But I also realise that it shouldn't be that way.

[The Weird One]

so you want him to go through no pain after all of the suffering that he caused!?!?!?

Uhm, he would still die in the end.... The choice is either killing him instantly, or letting him rot in prison till he croaks.

whoever said I wanted the bastard to die painlessly?

Well.....torture is generally filed under the cruel & unusual category. (Unless ofcourse you're doing it TO PROTECT YOUR COUNTRY FROM TRRISTS!)

Quite simply, what you're letting your stance be influenced by is emotion and anger. I understand that, and I feel the same way actually about it. But I also realise that it shouldn't be that way.

Realixing the reference, I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic with the bolded bit.

As far as the rest goes, of course I'm letting my emotions influence it. It's all part of something called "being human"...or mostly human in my case.

[Snorri1234]

Realixing the reference, I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic with the bolded bit.

Just a little bit.

As far as the rest goes, of course I'm letting my emotions influence it. It's all part of something called "being human"...or mostly human in my case.

No I understand that you have those emotions, but the problem is that they shouldn't determine what happens in society.
I for instance, have a frequent urge to hit people over the head with baseball bats, but I understand that that is not the rational thing to do.

[The Weird One]

Realixing the reference, I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic with the bolded bit.

Just a little bit.

As far as the rest goes, of course I'm letting my emotions influence it. It's all part of something called "being human"...or mostly human in my case.

No I understand that you have those emotions, but the problem is that they shouldn't determine what happens in society.
I for instance, have a frequent urge to hit people over the head with baseball bats, but I understand that that is not the rational thing to do.

why ever not!
it's fun. more seriously, though, is what you're saying that we shouldn't let human emotions influence a human society/

[Snorri1234]

why ever not!
it's fun. more seriously, though, is what you're saying that we shouldn't let human emotions influence a human society/

Yes. Mainly because not all human emotions are the same for everyone and that emotion isn't the best way to determine what is good. I mean, sometimes emotions can be the same as what is good, but often they're not.

Also, emotion doesn't hold up in court. You can be totally convinced that your emotion to murder 17 kids was totally good and all, but that is not a convincing argument.

[The Weird One]

why ever not!
it's fun. more seriously, though, is what you're saying that we shouldn't let human emotions influence a human society/

Yes. Mainly because not all human emotions are the same for everyone and that emotion isn't the best way to determine what is good. I mean, sometimes emotions can be the same as what is good, but often they're not.

Also, emotion doesn't hold up in court. You can be totally convinced that your emotion to murder 17 kids was totally good and all, but that is not a convincing argument.

you're missing my point.

If we shouldn't let human emotions influence a human society, then what should we let?

[Snorri1234]

you're missing my point.

If we shouldn't let human emotions influence a human society, then what should we let?

No emotions?

Emotions aren't a good thing when looking at society objectively. I mean, we could make laws discriminating minorities because a significant portion of people actually believe they're better than others, but we don't. The laws of a society should be based on rational thought, not whatever we feel. I mean, it's the reason why the USA isn't a theocracy even though most people there are religious.

[The Weird One]

you're missing my point.

If we shouldn't let human emotions influence a human society, then what should we let?

No emotions?

Emotions aren't a good thing when looking at society objectively. I mean, we could make laws discriminating minorities because a significant portion of people actually believe they're better than others, but we don't. The laws of a society should be based on rational thought, not whatever we feel. I mean, it's the reason why the USA isn't a theocracy even though most people there are religious.

so, if I'm understanding you, you feel that the government should have NOTHING to do with emotions. (sorry to drag this out, a yes or no will suffice as an answer for me)

[Snorri1234]

so, if I'm understanding you, you feel that the government should have NOTHING to do with emotions.

Uhm....yes?

[The Weird One]

so, if I'm understanding you, you feel that the government should have NOTHING to do with emotions.

Uhm....yes?

e·mo·tion /ɪˈmoʊʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-moh-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3. any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4. an instance of this.
5. something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.

hypocrite!
you have just, in my opinion, ruined your entire argument.

[Snorri1234]

hypocrite!
you have just, in my opinion, ruined your entire argument.

Uhm...how so? You caught me saying I feel a particular way, and since you have no other argument you try to pin me on something in order to ignore me? I didn't read your entire post actually, I didn't notice you said "feel" and I think it doesn't matter in the slightest.

[The Weird One]

hypocrite!
you have just, in my opinion, ruined your entire argument.

Uhm...how so? You caught me saying I feel a particular way, and since you have no other argument you try to pin me on something in order to ignore me? I didn't read your entire post actually, I didn't notice you said "feel" and I think it doesn't matter in the slightest.

but, if you feel one way, that's getting your emotions involved. isn't that what you've been arguing against. yes I know it's stupid and underhanded, but supper's ready and I'm trying to contribute in some way before I go eat.
I'm off to eat for now:P

[Snorri1234]

but, if you feel one way, that's getting your emotions involved. isn't that what you've been arguing against. yes I know it's stupid and underhanded, but supper's ready and I'm trying to contribute in some way before I go eat.
I'm off to eat for now:P

But what I meant to say was that I thought that way. I didn't notice you said feel.

[suggs]

Everyone has emotions. The point of having a judge in a court of law, trying a horrific mass murder case, is that, although doubtless the judge will have some emotion, he will have less emotion clouding his reasoning than relatives of the bereaved.
Still, Judges can occasionally be wrong, hence: no death penalty.

[unriggable]

If government relied on emotions, then the police would be more about revenge than justice, and all seperation of church and state would be gone.

[The Weird One]

but the point that I'm trying to get across is that it's unavoidable to have a government completely unaffected by emotions.

[Neoteny]

but the point that I'm trying to get across is that it's unavoidable to have a government completely unaffected by emotions.

Unavoidable, perhaps. Desirable, not quite.

[Symmetry]

The weird one: You're completely correct. There's no way to remove emotion from these issues. I don't think anyone really objects to that realistically.

But that is why we should try to remove emotions from the issue as much as possible. Sometimes in life it is best to work towards a goal even when it is unattainable. The fact that flaws are inevitable does not mean we should embrace them.

People won't address your point because it is both perfectly valid, and perfectly irrelevant to the argument. Acknowledging emotionalism is not the same as embracing it or objecting to it.

You can say that human emotions influence human society, and be right. But you will also be banal.

[Snorri1234]

The weird one: You're completely correct. There's no way to remove emotion from these issues. I don't think anyone really objects to that realistically.

But that is why we should try to remove emotions from the issue as much as possible. Sometimes in life it is best to work towards a goal even when it is unattainable. The fact that flaws are inevitable does not mean we should embrace them.

People won't address your point because it is both perfectly valid, and perfectly irrelevant to the argument. Acknowledging emotionalism is not the same as embracing it or objecting to it.

You can say that human emotions influence human society, and be right. But you will also be banal.

Yeah, we also strive for a society where everybody is happy, even though that will never happen. Just because the ideal will not be reached is no reason to not try to reach it.

[reminisco]

Yeah, we also strive for a society where everybody is happy, even though that will never happen. Just because the ideal will not be reached is no reason to not try to reach it.

you know, you try and pass yourself off as someone who uses logic and reason to arrive at conclusions.

so then why the f*ck does your signature say that 9/11 was an inside job?

and where the f*ck are you from? the NETHERLANDS? i swear to fucking god, you need to change your signature.

because you wanna know what fills a guy like me with rage and emotion? when some fuckhead like you claims that MY GOVERNMENT KILLED MY FRIENDS.

f*ck YOU.

they tried to kill my dad. he was wounded. lost 40 percent of his hearing when the towers came down you fucking shitbird.

and those friends of mine who are never coming back. who DIED.

f*ck you.

you know nothing. you ignorant piece of shit. people like you make me sick. make me livid. go study some fucking physics you self-righteous piece of shit.

how can you possibly make that claim? f*ck you. f*ck you. f*ck you.