71 replies to this topic

[thabto81]

Niether have you, so play nice.

You first.

And I'll kindly refer you back to my first post. Those certainly look like facts and quotations I presented.

It has nothing to do with vengance or my own satisfaction (OK, maybe a litttle bit my own satisfaction). Like I said before, I don't support eye-for-an-eye, everybody who kills anybody ever dies death penalties. I do believe, however, that there are some crimes which, being motivated niether by abnormal mental illness or neccesity that require some kind of punishment, and for the most severe of these, death is the only suitable one. Tookie Williams doesn't die, MOST murderers don't die, but Manson gets the chair and Eichmann gets hung.

And yet you've yet to provide any justification for those executions towards the betterment of society at large. So what else could it be besides your overriding sense of vengence? I'll ask again, what is the purpose behind you're killing Manson and Eichman if cases like theirs, atrocious as they are, are rare to say the least? And how is it that we can't learn more by keeping them alive and interrogating them rather than chopping their heads off as Dryth was so kind to present? That certainly sounds like an alternative not just towards the bettering of society but also for avoiding horrendous events attributed to people like Eichman and Manson.

[Alakhriveion]

You first.

And I'll kindly refer you back to my first post. Those certainly look like facts and quotations I presented.

I AGREE with your practical reasons, but your morals ones aren't facts and cannot be supported. Since we disagree on those, we must also disagree on the execution of the absolutely evil. Stop acting like your position is more reasonable that mine.

And yet you've yet to provide any justification for those executions towards the betterment of society at large. So what else could it be besides your overriding sense of vengence? I'll ask again, what is the purpose behind you're killing Manson and Eichman if cases like theirs, atrocious as they are, are rare to say the least?

1. We're better off with them not around. Remember that episode of South Park where Manson got out of prison? Kenny DIED because he hasn't been executed yet.
2. There has to be some kind of punishment for things like that. What do you suggest? Life in prison for genocide?

And how is it that we can't learn more by keeping them alive and interrogating them rather than chopping their heads off as Dryth was so kind to present? That certainly sounds like an alternative not just towards the bettering of society but also for avoiding horrendous events attributed to people like Eichman and Manson.

Not really. We know why the Holocaust happened (A Jew killed Hitler's dog, I'm not even kidding) and there are very, very few people who risk going the way Manson did. The enormous expense and tiny possible benefit of studying these people does not outweigh the moral neccesity of their deaths. Also, if you REALLY want to check their heads out, why not kill them when you're done?

[Korhend]

we actually did do that to some axis leaders.

[thabto81]

I AGREE with your practical reasons, but your morals ones aren't facts and cannot be supported. Since we disagree on those, we must also disagree on the execution of the absolutely evil. Stop acting like your position is more reasonable that mine.

I'd like to remind you that you've stated only moral reasons and then claimed they were "right". Are you unaware that there is no mass consensus on what is right and wrong with regards to morals? Therefore, can you blame me for putting you to the flame for making such an outlandish remark?

1. We're better off with them not around. Remember that episode of South Park where Manson got out of prison? Kenny DIED because he hasn't been executed yet.
2. There has to be some kind of punishment for things like that. What do you suggest? Life in prison for genocide?

1. They don't have to be dead to be withheld from interacting with society. And if you're talking about letters and notes to the outside world, well then that's simple, deny them those rights.
2. And exactly how does killing Hitler or Saddam act as punishment? Especially if one was so willing to kill himself and the other has made it abundantly clear he is not afraid of execution?

Not really. We know why the Holocaust happened (A Jew killed Hitler's dog, I'm not even kidding) and there are very, very few people who risk going the way Manson did. The enormous expense and tiny possible benefit of studying these people does not outweigh the moral neccesity of their deaths. Also, if you REALLY want to check their heads out, why not kill them when you're done?

So saving even one innocent life is not enough for you? Then what does it matter if these people are put to death or not? What are you trying to protect? Innocent lives? If a dangerous person like Manson is locked away those people are protected. What are you trying to preserve? Our way of life? Ok then, how exactly does putting anybody to death show we have evolved into a species worthy of that way of life? What point are you trying to get across? That mass murderers are not acceptable in a society? I think we all pretty much share that sentiment and it's not like it's going to stop future Genocidal maniacs from trying to follow in the footsteps of Hitler and Eichman.

The only thing I could possibly see it serving is to satisfy, and justify, your bloodlust to see one last bit of blood spilled in the name of Saddam Hussein. Or Charles Manson. Or Adolf Hitler. And need I remind you that there are plenty of neo-Nazi's out there preaching hate just like Hitler did so even your vengence is short lived as you'll eventually have to find a new target to take it out on.

[Doopliss]

I'm completely against Death Penalty. I believe no one has the righ to take another person's life, and that it's pointless to use Death Penalty since it won't solve the crimes that have been commited.

[Alakhriveion]

I'd like to remind you that you've stated only moral reasons and then claimed they were "right". Are you unaware that there is no mass consensus on what is right and wrong with regards to morals? Therefore, can you blame me for putting you to the flame for making such an outlandish remark?

Yes, I'm aware of that. We've both done that, in fact, and yes, it IS really arrogant. But I haven't said that my stance is better than yours, I've just defended it. You refered to yours as fact. Not cool.

1. They don't have to be dead to be withheld from interacting with society. And if you're talking about letters and notes to the outside world, well then that's simple, deny them those rights.

I'm of the professional opinion (cool your jowls, that's not serious) that this would be immoral.

2. And exactly how does killing Hitler or Saddam act as punishment? Especially if one was so willing to kill himself and the other has made it abundantly clear he is not afraid of execution?

If they're cool with it, well, I'm really not bothered: they'll be too dead to be self-rightous.

So saving even one innocent life is not enough for you?

No, not even. I care so much about bringing mass murderers and genocides to justice because I don't care for innocents at ALL. I don't think studying them is practical. Is a difference.

Then what does it matter if these people are put to death or not? What are you trying to protect? Innocent lives?

Justice? People don't just get away with shit like that. Prison is, well, I've got issues with prison, there's no rehabilitation, and we're only talking about crimes most people could never redeem themselves of.

If a dangerous person like Manson is locked away those people are protected.

Yeah, also if he's dead. Your way increases suffering (prison blows) without any fitting punishment.

What are you trying to preserve? Our way of life?

No, not really. The fact I don't support the death penalty as it currently exists coulda told you that.

Ok then, how exactly does putting anybody to death show we have evolved into a species worthy of that way of life?

Way to be irrational, mate. Type slow if you can't keep a clear head.

What point are you trying to get across? That mass murderers are not acceptable in a society? I think we all pretty much share that sentiment and it's not like it's going to stop future Genocidal maniacs from trying to follow in the footsteps of Hitler and Eichman.

No, it isn't a deterant. It does not serve a practical purpose, aside from maybe making a lot of people feel better. You know what else costs a lot of money and serves no practical purpose? FOIA. Our lives would be much less stressful if we just never had to know who the government had killed, how many phones they tap, and that they had people searching Albert Einstien's trash can for teh revolution, but I believe it is immoral to keep that information from people. Ethics are a bitch. Deal.

The only thing I could possibly see it serving is to satisfy, and justify, your bloodlust to see one last bit of blood spilled in the name of Saddam Hussein. Or Charles Manson. Or Adolf Hitler. And need I remind you that there are plenty of neo-Nazi's out there preaching hate just like Hitler did so even your vengence is short lived as you'll eventually have to find a new target to take it out on.

Oooh, caught me! I support massive reform of the justice system and the abolition of the death penalty in all but the most special cases because I wanna KILL! I wanna stab babies and burn cities and see the heads ROLL, dammit! I mean, yeah, my system would've had, like, what, forty executions in the last century, but that's the same thing as calling for wide-spread, bloody purges and the return of Gladiators to the arena.

CURSES! Foiled again!

[Goose]

I"m trying to find your point of view, but all I've got is this.

Alaks mind
-----

I dont believe in the mass culling of the American system at the moment, but I believe that there are some people that are just so evil that death is the only option.

I only pretend to be atheast, I'm really as Jewish as anyone.

I"m a cynic, and I love it.

-----exit transmission from Alaks mind------

[thabto81]

Yes, I'm aware of that. We've both done that, in fact, and yes, it IS really arrogant. But I haven't said that my stance is better than yours, I've just defended it. You refered to yours as fact. Not cool.

And claiming your views as right isn't a claim towards superiority?

And just because I put you to task for stating your moral opinion as right doesn't mean I believe mine is. "Better", on the other hand, is subjective and I do believe mine is better than yours. And you'd be a fool by pretending to act humble and say you didn't feel the same way.

I'm of the professional opinion (cool your jowls, that's not serious) that this would be immoral.

Depending on the level of the offense I can hardly call denying people the right to converse with open society immoral especially when one is convicted of crimes like genocide. An act that requires the careful manipulation of people in society.

If they're cool with it, well, I'm really not bothered: they'll be too dead to be self-rightous.

You can kill as many people as you want with execution, but you can't kill an idea. Saddam will have his followers, as Hitler does, unless you destroy everything they stand for. Your solution of "killing them and letting God sort them out" solves nothing.

No, not even. I care so much about bringing mass murderers and genocides to justice because I don't care for innocents at ALL. I don't think studying them is practical. Is a difference.

And I quote: "The enormous expense and tiny possible benefit of studying these people does not outweigh the moral neccesity of their deaths." Your words. Not mine.

Justice? People don't just get away with shit like that. Prison is, well, I've got issues with prison, there's no rehabilitation, and we're only talking about crimes most people could never redeem themselves of.

I never stated anything about rehabilitation. And the only punishment these people would ever understand is the death of their following. They need a following in order to survive. They don't even need to be physically alive to still have some effect on the world. Case in point: Senator Joseph McCarthy. A dangerous man, to be sure, and could have been more so if he wasn't pushed from his pedastal early. Sure, someone could have stepped up to the plate and assassinated him but then the hearings of him being publicly humiliated would never have happened.

Yeah, also if he's dead. Your way increases suffering (prison blows) without any fitting punishment.

I'll have you know that this is a declarative sentence stating a supposed fact. If you want me to concede this point than you'd better have some strong evidence in support of it.

No, not really. The fact I don't support the death penalty as it currently exists coulda told you that. Way to be irrational, mate. Type slow if you can't keep a clear head.

Or perhaps I should try typing "hi-poe-the-ti-call-e?" from now on?

It doesn't matter that you'd reserve the death penalty for only the most "extreme of cases". You are still supporting it as if it does anything. You claim "justice" and "punishment" but what justice is there if that extreme case you like to point out can't even measure up to one life they have taken let alone 6 million? What "punishment" is there if that persons ideas continue to live on, probably even more so because they are seen as a martyr by your execution?

No, it isn't a deterant. It does not serve a practical purpose, aside from maybe making a lot of people feel better. You know what else costs a lot of money and serves no practical purpose? FOIA. Our lives would be much less stressful if we just never had to know who the government had killed, how many phones they tap, and that they had people searching Albert Einstien's trash can for teh revolution, but I believe it is immoral to keep that information from people. Ethics are a bitch. Deal.

You know what else feels good? Crack. Just because it feels good doesn't make selling it "right" or "moral". And the last time I checked the freedom of information act serves a very practical purpose: it protects the freedom and liberties of the American people.

Oooh, caught me! I support massive reform of the justice system and the abolition of the death penalty in all but the most special cases because I wanna KILL! I wanna stab babies and burn cities and see the heads ROLL, dammit! I mean, yeah, my system would've had, like, what, forty executions in the last century, but that's the same thing as calling for wide-spread, bloody purges and the return of Gladiators to the arena.

CURSES! Foiled again!

You can cite as many fallacies that I'm not accused of making as much as I want. The fact is that when you, personally, are faced with an atrocious event like the holocaust or the Cielo Drive murders, you demand "justice" by bringing the culprits in front of the firing squad. Bloodshed is bloodshed, whether it be innocent or otherwise.

[Korhend]

I think we all pretty much share that sentiment and it's not like it's going to stop future Genocidal maniacs from trying to follow in the footsteps of Hitler and Eichman.

"Who after all, remembers the armenians."
Eichman, Goering, Goebbels and Himmler were all opposed to the Holocaust, fearing the death penalty as retribution. Hitler reminded no such hammer fell on the turks. Guess what happened next?

[thabto81]

once the reply hits a certain amount of quotes it reverts to showing the code. the trick is to split up the reply into and respond one right after the other. the board will combine the two making it back into one reply, code intact.

[Alakhriveion]

Thanks, yeah, that works.

EDIT: But you can't edit AAAHHHH

I"m trying to find your point of view, but all I've got is this.

Alaks mind
-----

I dont believe in the mass culling of the American system at the moment, but I believe that there are some people that are just so evil that death is the only option.

I only pretend to be atheast, I'm really as Jewish as anyone.

I"m a cynic, and I love it.

-----exit transmission from Alaks mind------

Dammit how'd you know dammit!?

And just because I put you to task for stating your moral opinion as right doesn't mean I believe mine is.

Then what's wrong with you? There's nothing wrong with believing something reasonable.

"Better", on the other hand, is subjective and I do believe mine is better than yours. And you'd be a fool by pretending to act humble and say you didn't feel the same way.

You mean a hypocrit, but yeah, that's true. So here it is: I'm right, you're wrong.

Depending on the level of the offense I can hardly call denying people the right to converse with open society immoral especially when one is convicted of crimes like genocide. An act that requires the careful manipulation of people in society.

No, it eliminates their free speech and communication, something I wish on nobody (although there's a bunch of people I'd deny free press). Also, it cuts them off from human contact, which is essentially torture, something a tad worse than death.

You can kill as many people as you want with execution, but you can't kill an idea. Saddam will have his followers, as Hitler does, unless you destroy everything they stand for. Your solution of "killing them and letting God sort them out" solves nothing.

I don't WANT to kill an idea, I want to kill a person. It's a whole lot easier. The idea didn't hurt anyone, and even if it had, and it WERE possible to destroy it, we'd be punishing everyone.

And I quote: "The enormous expense and tiny possible benefit of studying these people does not outweigh the moral neccesity of their deaths." Your words. Not mine.

Exactly. The negligible benefits and massive costs of studying these people is not worth not killing them and an impractical way to work against their crimes being commited by others. I care about innocents and I a) don't want them to go unvindicated and B) don't want to waste time when something usefu could be happening to work against their suffering. Quoting and bolding and hoping I contradicted myself isn't an argument.

It doesn't matter that you'd reserve the death penalty for only the most "extreme of cases". You are still supporting it as if it does anything. You claim "justice" and "punishment" but what justice is there if that extreme case you like to point out can't even measure up to one life they have taken let alone 6 million? What "punishment" is there if that persons ideas continue to live on, probably even more so because they are seen as a martyr by your execution?

No, I am NOT supporting it as if it does anything, I support it because it is the only moral thing to do: a stance no better or worse than your position that all life is sacred.

I never stated anything about rehabilitation. And the only punishment these people would ever understand is the death of their following. They need a following in order to survive. They don't even need to be physically alive to still have some effect on the world. Case in point: Senator Joseph McCarthy. A dangerous man, to be sure, and could have been more so if he wasn't pushed from his pedastal early. Sure, someone could have stepped up to the plate and assassinated him but then the hearings of him being publicly humiliated would never have happened.

I agree. Better to shame McCarthy publicly before driving him to drink himself to death. Better to win the war before hanging Nazis. Assasination is something which shouldn't happen unless absolutely neccesary. Execution is something totally different. Stay on topic.

You know what else feels good? Crack. Just because it feels good doesn't make selling it "right" or "moral". And the last time I checked the freedom of information act serves a very practical purpose: it protects the freedom and liberties of the American people.

How free are we, exactly, if we're no burdened with knowing things we lived happily without? What liberties we gained a far outweighed by the stresses and responsibilities. Ethics don't make anyone's lives easier. I don't like when people are killed. If I was asked to pull the switch on Manson, I probably couldn't do it. But it does need to get done.

I'll have you know that this is a declarative sentence stating a supposed fact. If you want me to concede this point than you'd better have some strong evidence in support of it.

Go back, read your first post, and deflate those balls a little.

You can cite as many fallacies that I'm not accused of making as much as I want. The fact is that when you, personally, are faced with an atrocious event like the holocaust or the Cielo Drive murders, you demand "justice" by bringing the culprits in front of the firing squad. Bloodshed is bloodshed, whether it be innocent or otherwise.

No, no it isn't. There are something situation in which people must die. There are wars that need to be won, there are people that need to be punished. There are times when kiling CANNOT be avoided.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 21 December 2005 - 01:12 AM.

[Xeres]

Clarification: I closed this thread. It's gotten out of hand.

/end clarification