NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you feel that the Nazis tried at the major Nuremburg trials should have been executed, or is it simply sinking to the level of those same Nazis to condone state murders? Do your opinions of what you feel should have happened to the Nazis leaders conflict with your general attitudes toward capital punishment?

I am for the death penalty so I obviously think that these "people" got what they deserve. We must go back to the old ways in our punishment. An eye for an eye.

But I wouldnt expect you to feel that way after openly stating that we shouldnt have stopped the holocaust because it wasnt our problem, as Americans. :rolleyes:

Most of the SS were murderers and criminals to begin with in the first place. They were hired because they were ruthless and cruel. They got what they deserved, I have yet to hear of a tale of a compassionate SS.

They deserved their executions, plain and simple.

Most of the SS were murderers and criminals to begin with in the first place. They were hired because they were ruthless and cruel. They got what they deserved, I have yet to hear of a tale of a compassionate SS.
Well of course you haven't. If anyone admits, for even half a second, that maybe a handful of Nazis were humans of some sort, then they'd have to admit that the rest of the West was far from innocent.
God forbid that the Allies come to grips that they, too, were eugenics obsessed, anti-semitic assholes who'd rather side with the greater of two evils provided that the greater evil was "over there" and relegated to just butchering a few tens of millions of dirty Russians, east Europeans, and Jews.

They deserved their executions, plain and simple.
There is a distinctions between what one deserves and what is morally justifiable. Many that live today deserve to be painfully tortured to death, but no one with any sense of decency would carry out the torture because it makes them no better than the one deserving the torture.
I am for the death penalty so I obviously think that these "people" got what they deserve. We must go back to the old ways in our punishment. An eye for an eye.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi
Think about it.
But I wouldnt expect you to feel that way after openly stating that we shouldnt have stopped the holocaust because it wasnt our problem, as Americans.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Yes, they did deserve the executions, although Fiddlebottoms makes a more than valid point. The Nuremberg Trials were just a rushed cover for the Allies to show that they had won, although several of the lawyers did some remarkable things there. My knowledge of events at Nuremberg is rather hazy.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi
Think about it.
Yeah, but a tooth for a tooth makes the pudding industry rich, and the performance of my stocks in JELL-O have been a bit lackluster of late.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi
Think about it.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

First of all....I dont care what Gandhi said...he was a pacifist...he new nothing of law and order/punishment.

Second of all...unless you take back what you said about we should have just let all the Jews die because it wasnt Americas fault, I really cant find you credible on anything holocaust related.

I am for the death penality but feel Nuremburg was mostly a scam. Since many others were shipped to south America to help stop the commies. With the help of the US.

I am for the death penality but feel Nuremburg was mostly a scam. Since many others were shipped to south America to help stop the commies. With the help of the US.

Uh...many fled to South America....without the help of America or any other allied country.

Uh...many fled to South America....without the help of America or any other allied country.

But many were shipped to the US by US authorities - the infamous Operation Paperclip, for example. Much of Nuremberg was a sham, although many of those who did deserve to be executed were. Then again, it was a trial created by the victors, and hardly fair. It was an odd event.

Uh...many fled to South America....
With help of the US. For example Klaus Barbie. Nickname the Butcher of Lyon.
From 1947 to 1951 he worked for CIC in Germany aginst the commies. After that he did the same for the US in Bolivia for quit a while.

I am for the death penalty so I obviously think that these "people" got what they deserve. We must go back to the old ways in our punishment. An eye for an eye.
If we're going to quote the Bible, why not "turn the other cheek", words directly from Jesus? (if you believe the Bible)

...not that 'turn the other cheek' is my opinion on what should have been done, it just seems odd to quote an eye for an eye when it was 'replaced' by it.

If we're going to quote the Bible, why not "turn the other cheek", words directly from Jesus? (if you believe the Bible)

...not that 'turn the other cheek' is my opinion on what should have been done, it just seems odd to quote an eye for an eye when it was 'replaced' by it.
Would you do that for the devil incarnate?

Would you do that for the devil incarnate?
If I were a Christian, sure. That would be following the word of Jesus. That's my point; if you're going to quote the Bible, at least quote what Jesus said, rather than what he replaced.

Would you do that for the devil incarnate?
Stalin wasn't executed at Nurenburg, though.

If you become a saint for forgiving a murderer who killed your entire family...for forgiving the devil you'd be the next Jesus.

If we're going to quote the Bible, why not "turn the other cheek", words directly from Jesus? (if you believe the Bible)

Because I dont follwing the teachings of Jesus, I'm Jewish. :p

...not that 'turn the other cheek' is my opinion on what should have been done, it just seems odd to quote an eye for an eye when it was 'replaced' by it.

It was replaced, for Christians...but, since I follow the old testament only it wasnt really replacd. ;)

Therefore...an eye for an eye...A murder takes an innocent life, his corrupted life with be taken. Then, only God can save him.

Uh...many fled to South America....without the help of America or any other allied country.
The had the help of the Vatica.

One man was allowed to espcape by the US government, though. His name was Klaus Barbie, affectionately referred to by the French people as The Butcher of Lyon. Look it up.
Second of all...unless you take back what you said about we should have just let all the Jews die because it wasnt Americas fault, I really cant find you credible on anything holocaust related.
Last I checked, one’s opinion has nothing to do with credibility as long as they do not distort facts to support it. The word you were searching for was possibly respectable.

If I were a Christian, sure. That would be following the word of Jesus. That's my point; if you're going to quote the Bible, at least quote what Jesus said, rather than what he replaced.
Maybe he's quoting the Torah (or whatever Jewish collection the line originally was from before Christians borrowed it).

Perfect, that's how it should be. More so if you are responsible for tens of thousands to millions of deaths.

Because I dont follwing the teachings of Jesus, I'm Jewish. :p

How convenient :p



It was replaced, for Christians...but, since I follow the old testament only it wasnt really replacd. ;)

Therefore...an eye for an eye...A murder takes an innocent life, his corrupted life with be taken. Then, only God can save him.
Well, if that's what you want to believe...

Maybe he's quoting the Torah (or whatever Jewish collection the line originally was from before Christians borrowed it).
Well then he should disregard.

Its a good moral...why choose to disregard an old way?

Second of all...unless you take back what you said about we should have just let all the Jews die because it wasnt Americas fault, I really cant find you credible on anything holocaust related.
Eventhough IBM won't admit it. They made good money off of the holocaust.

I'm against the death penalty but I don't see any reason why I wouldn't kill them myself if given the chance.

Well then he should disregard.
Oh yeah, well so's your mother.
Of all the cheek, responding rationally and without any hint of defensiveness. Where is this world going to?

Therefore...an eye for an eye...A murder takes an innocent life, his corrupted life with be taken. Then, only God can save him.
Your faith disgust me. Ever consider that maybe the creater of volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes, AIDs and cancer might not give a shit about some petty genocide?
Stalin wasn't executed at Nurenburg, though.
Fastest wit in the west.

Oh yeah, well so's your mother.
Of all the cheek, responding rationally and without any hint of defensiveness. Where is this world going to?
I'm sorry.

A Jew, eh? Well he's burning in hell anyway because we all know Jesus Christ is our saviour; Jesus is right, he's wrong, so I don't care what he thinks.

Better? :p

I'm against the death penalty but I don't see any reason why I wouldn't kill them myself if given the chance.
I see you’re fine with inconsistency and arbitrary moral boundaries then.
Tell me, why do you believe the death penalty is wrong and why do you believe that those reasons don’t apply to the executed Nazis.

I'm sorry.

A Jew, eh? Well he's burning in hell anyway because we all know Jesus Christ is our saviour; Jesus is right, he's wrong, so I don't care what he thinks.

Better? :p

B-B-But...Jesus was Jewish!

Most of the SS were murderers and criminals to begin with in the first place. They were hired because they were ruthless and cruel. They got what they deserved, I have yet to hear of a tale of a compassionate SS.

That's because history is written by the winners. The fact that the allies won covers up any truths about Nazis that would make them seem human and with feeling. Even though they were the closest group of people to monsters the world has seen.

I'm against the death penalty but I don't see any reason why I wouldn't kill them myself if given the chance.

One word: Hypocrite.

Your faith disgust me. Ever consider that maybe the creater of volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes, AIDs and cancer might not give a shit about some petty genocide?

Fastest wit in the west.

I have no idea...which is why I say we kill them...and let God judge them.

I'm sorry.
And now you're acting in a reconciliatory manner! GODDAMMIT!! Why do you insist on demeaning the very standards of NS Debate that so many have given their otherwise productive afternoons to maintain?
A Jew, eh? Well he's burning in hell anyway because we all know Jesus Christ is our saviour; Jesus is right, he's wrong, so I don't care what he thinks.

Better? :p
Well, at least you're trying to improve a bit. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

How convenient :p




Well, if that's what you want to believe...

Yeah. Anyway...kill and be killed...its up to God to decide what to do with you once you get where your going.

That's because history is written by the winners. The fact that the allies won covers up any truths about Nazis that would make them seem human and with feeling. Even though they were the closest group of people to monsters the world has seen.

Let us say the Asbenian Prayer: "Oh lord, let my hand bring wisdom to the mind of this poor fool, and make it strong lord! For it may better Byshade forever more."

*slaps Byshade HARD*

They were CRIMINALS to begin with, murderers and traitors and thieves. Death was a BUSINESS to the SS. The Deathcamps were a source of money for the Germans, it was so sickly designed that the diet was meant to kill you in THREE MONTHS. They couldn't kill enough when they had to leave either. THEY RAN OUT OF BULLETS FOR PEOPLE. THEY WERE MONSTERS.

I have no idea...which is why I say we kill them...and let God judge them.
Then why not just commit mass seppuku and let God sort everyone out at once. Would sure make things a lot easier.
Oh wait, I forgot, not everyone believes your bullshit and we live in a secular society.

B-B-But...Jesus was Jewish!
Lies, lies, and more lies! :p

And now you're acting in a reconciliatory manner! GODDAMMIT!! Why do you insist on demeaning the very standards of NS Debate that so many have given their otherwise productive afternoons to maintain?

Well, at least you're trying to improve a bit. Maybe there is hope for you after all.
I'll try harder in future. You cock etc.

Yeah. Anyway...kill and be killed...its up to God to decide what to do with you once you get where your going.
Looks like that's an agree to disagree issue. Can't be getting into a debate about the merits of the death penalty, the relevance of Judaism as opposed to Christianity, or the existence of God himself. Too much thinking.

Let us say the Asbenian Prayer: "Oh lord, let my hand bring wisdom to the mind of this poor fool, and make it strong lord! For it may better Byshade forever more."

*slaps Byshade HARD*

They were CRIMINALS to begin with, murderers and traitors and thieves. Death was a BUSINESS to the SS. The Deathcamps were a source of money for the Germans, it was so sickly designed that the diet was meant to kill you in THREE MONTHS. They couldn't kill enough when they had to leave either. THEY RAN OUT OF BULLETS FOR PEOPLE. THEY WERE MONSTERS.

They were also human. It shouldn't be a bad thing to admit that, because to do so is to realise that the Nazis were no different to anyone else. And that doesn't make their crimes lesser things - it makes them worse, as people realise that people the same as they are did these things.

I see you’re fine with inconsistency and arbitrary moral boundaries then.
Tell me, why do you believe the death penalty is wrong and why do you believe that those reasons don’t apply to the executed Nazis.
I don't like the idea of state sanctioned executions. I don't see how I'm being inconsistent. Did they deserve to die? Yeah. I already said I'd kill them myself. But should my Government be allowed to kill someone that is already imprisoned. Nope. I don't like the idea. It doesn't keep me up at night, though - knowing that the government executed Nazis.

One word: Hypocrite.
Why?

I know a Nazi, even though I think he is a Nzi just cause he likes being an ass. I do agree that in any cases where there in any reasonable doubt, that people should not be given the death penalty. However, if there is no reasonable doubt, throw them in an incinerator. Or a roman arena. That would be cool. Anyways, I do not believe that there was any reasonable doubt that the Nazi leaders comitted mass genocide. Also, Nationstates as devolved to the point where someone could make a thread titled: All Christians are assholes who need to die! and not get banned. It will probably not happen, but it is possible. And then, someone could say: I don't like atheists, and get forumbanned forever. I would really not like to argue about it, I was speaking figureativaly (somebody check this please) and the mods probably wouldn't allow this to happen, but I was speaking in hyperbole. The atheists do that a lot. In fact I should just stop talking right now.

Why?

Read your post I quoted. That's why. You are against death penalty, but would carry it out yourself.

The SS was horrible, you people are morons if you think that the ones at the Death Camps were innocent. Dr. Death was there. It was worse then HELL.

Read your post I quoted. That's why. You are against death penalty, but would carry it out yourself.

The SS was horrible, you people are morons if you think that the ones at the Death Camps were innocent. Dr. Death was there. It was worse then HELL.
I never said they were innocent... what are you talking about?

The SS was horrible
Victors say.

Dr. Death was there.
Covorkian was at the camps?:eek:
It was worse then HELL.
You have a source to back that up?

Yes I have my sources:

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.html
http://www.deathcamps.info/
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/maidanek.htm
http://www.deathcamps.info/Nazis/Default.htm


I have much much more if you need it.

Yes I have my sources:

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.html
http://www.deathcamps.info/
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/maidanek.htm
http://www.deathcamps.info/Nazis/Default.htm


I have much much more if you need it.
No. I meant that they were worse then HELL!!!

Read Dante's Inferno, part of Dante's Divine Comedy.


Purgatory

You have escaped damnation and made it to Purgatory, a place where the dew of repentance washes off the stain of sin and girds the spirit with humility. Through contrition, confession, and satisfaction by works of righteousness, you must make your way up the mountain. As the sins are cleansed from your soul, you will be illuminated by the Sun of Divine Grace, and you will join other souls, smiling and happy, upon the summit of this mountain. Before long you will know the joys of Paradise as you ascend to the ethereal realm of Heaven.
Level 1 - Limbo

Charon ushers you across the river Acheron, and you find yourself upon the brink of grief's abysmal valley. You are in Limbo, a place of sorrow without torment. You encounter a seven-walled castle, and within those walls you find rolling fresh meadows illuminated by the light of reason, whereabout many shades dwell. These are the virtuous pagans, the great philosophers and authors, unbaptised children, and others unfit to enter the kingdom of heaven. You share company with Caesar, Homer, Virgil, Socrates, and Aristotle. There is no punishment here, and the atmosphere is peaceful, yet sad.
Level 2

You have come to a place mute of all light, where the wind bellows as the sea does in a tempest. This is the realm where the lustful spend eternity. Here, sinners are blown around endlessly by the unforgiving winds of unquenchable desire as punishment for their transgressions. The infernal hurricane that never rests hurtles the spirits onward in its rapine, whirling them round, and smiting, it molests them. You have betrayed reason at the behest of your appetite for pleasure, and so here you are doomed to remain. Cleopatra and Helen of Troy are two that share in your fate.

Level 3

In the third circle, you find yourself amidst eternal rain, maledict, cold, and heavy. The gluttons are punished here, lying in the filthy mixture of shadows and of putrid water. Because you consumed in excess, you meet your fate beneath the cold, dirty rain, amidst the other souls that there lay unhappily in the stinking mud. Cerebus, a canine monster cruel and uncouth with his three heads and red eyes, dwells in this level. He growls and tears at the damned with his teeth and claws.
Level 4

Just before the river Styx is the Fourth Level of Hell. Here, the prodigal and the avaricious suffer their punishment, as they roll weights back and forth against one another. You will share eternal damnation with others who either wasted and lived greedily and insatiably, or who stockpiled their fortunes, hoarding everything and sharing nothing. Plutus, the wolf-like demon of wealth, dwells here.
Level 5

The river Styx runs through this level of Hell, and in it are punished the wrathful and the gloomy. The former are forever lashing out at each other in anger, furious and naked, tearing each other piecemeal with their teeth. The latter are gurgling in the black mud, slothful and sullen, withdrawn from the world. Their lamentations bubble to the surface as they try to repeat a doleful hymn, though with unbroken words they cannot say it. Because you lived a cruel, vindictive and hateful life, you meet your fate in the Styx.
Level 6 - The City of Dis

You approach Satan's wretched city where you behold a wide plain surrounded by iron walls. Before you are fields full of distress and torment terrible. Burning tombs are littered about the landscape. Inside these flaming sepulchers suffer the heretics, failing to believe in God and the afterlife, who make themselves audible by doleful sighs. You will join the wicked that lie here, and will be offered no respite. The three infernal Furies stained with blood, with limbs of women and hair of serpents, dwell in this circle of Hell.
Level 7

Guarded by the Minotaur, who snarls in fury, and encircled within the river Phlegethon, filled with boiling blood, is the Seventh Level of Hell. The violent, the assasins, the tyrants, and the war-mongers lament their pitiless mischiefs in the river, while centaurs armed with bows and arrows shoot those who try to escape their punishment. The stench here is overpowering. This level is also home to the wood of the suicides- stunted and gnarled trees with twisting branches and poisoned fruit. At the time of final judgement, their bodies will hang from their branches. In those branches the Harpies, foul birdlike creatures with human faces, make their nests. Beyond the wood is scorching sand where those who committed violence against God and nature are showered with flakes of fire that rain down against their naked bodies. Blasphemers and sodomites writhe in pain, their tongues more loosed to lamentation, and out of their eyes gushes forth their woe. Usurers, who followed neither nature nor art, also share company in the Seventh Level.
Level 8- the Malebolge

Many and varied sinners suffer eternally in the multi-leveled Malebolge, an ampitheatre-shapped pit of despair Wholly of stone and of an iron colour: Those guilty of fraudulence and malice; the seducers and pimps, who are whipped by horned demons; the hypocrites, who struggle to walk in lead-lined cloaks; the barraters, who are ducked in boiling pitch by demons known as the Malebranche. The simonists, wedged into stone holes, and whose feet are licked by flames, kick and writhe desperately. The magicians, diviners, fortune tellers, and panderers are all here, as are the thieves. Some wallow in human excrement. Serpents writhe and wrap around men, sometimes fusing into each other. Bodies are torn apart. When you arrive, you will want to put your hands over your ears because of the lamentations of the sinners here, who are afflicted with scabs like leprosy, and lay sick on the ground, furiously scratching their skin off with their nails. Indeed, justice divine doth smite them with its hammer.
Level 9 - Cocytus

This is the deepest level of hell, where the fallen angel Satan himself resides. His wings flap eternally, producing chilling cold winds that freeze the thick ice found in Cocytus. The three faces of Satan, black, red, and yellow, can be seen with mouths gushing bloody foam and eyes forever weeping, as they chew on the three traitors, Judas, Brutus, and Cassius. This place is furthest removed from the source of all light and warmth. Sinners here are frozen deep in the ice, faces out, eyes and mouths frozen shut. Traitors against God, country, family, and benefactors lament their sins in this frigid pit of despair.

Read Dante's Inferno, part of Dante's Divine Comedy.
You really think that the Nazi's went to Medieval Storyland?

Some of them were horrible people, who surely deserved death. But just as Tolkien says, it's not us who can give it to them.

And some of the executions were utterly unnecessary. Keitel and Jodl might have been incompetent morons, but they weren't war criminals.

Do you feel that the Nazis tried at the major Nuremburg trials should have been executed, or is it simply sinking to the level of those same Nazis to condone state murders? Do your opinions of what you feel should have happened to the Nazis leaders conflict with your general attitudes toward capital punishment?

I feel they shouldn't have been executed.
Oh, no doubt, they probably "deserved" it. But killing them wasn't justice, it was revenge. No judical system should set out to revenge victims, the purpose of courts and law is to bring justice.
As it is, they became martyrs for future generations of Neonazis, albeit less so than the Nazi leaders who comitted suicide. Executing them gave them a certain heroic halo, but letting them live to old age and dementia in a prison would soon have done away with that. In addition, it would have given the German people the possibility (and would have made it necessary, in fact) to face their actions during WW II much sooner. As it was, that part of history was almost completely ignored until the 1970s, or else it was viewed in a strangely detached way. Having these people in prison, the living memory of those days and of those crimes, may have helped the general population to come to terms with their own past in a much more direct way

First of all....I dont care what Gandhi said...he was a pacifist...he new nothing of law and order/punishment.
What, the barrister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister) Gandhi knew nothing of law and order?

I think you should try again, good sir. ;)

I am opposed to the death penalty in all instances. Whether they were "deserving" of that fate or not (some were among the most vile of humankind to walk the earth, others were still vile, but not quite that bad), I still feel that it is not within the rights of man to deal that punishment out.

Do your opinions of what you feel should have happened to the Nazis leaders conflict with your general attitudes toward capital punishment?
No.

I'm against capital punishment in all cases, no matter how heinous the crime, it's still wrong to kill the perpetrator.

Do you feel that the Nazis tried at the major Nuremburg trials should have been executed, or is it simply sinking to the level of those same Nazis to condone state murders? Do your opinions of what you feel should have happened to the Nazis leaders conflict with your general attitudes toward capital punishment?
Firstly, let's have a closer look at who was found guilty and executed. (And not surprisingly, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial) is my source...)

*Martin Bormann, successor to Hess as Nazi Party Secretary. Sentenced to death in absentia.
*Hans Frank, Ruler of the General Government in occupied Poland.
*Wilhelm Frick, Hitler's Minister of the Interior. Author of the Nuremberg Race Laws.
*Hermann Göring, commander of Luftwaffe, and several departments of the SS.
*Alfred Jodl, Wehrmacht Generaloberst, Keitel's subordinate.
*Ernst Kaltenbrunner, highest surviving SS-leader. Chief of RSHA, the central Nazi intelligence organ. Also, commanded many of the Einsatzgruppen and several concentration camps.
*Wilhelm Keitel, Head of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht.
*Joachim von Ribbentrop, Nazi Minister of Foreign Affairs.
*Alfred Rosenberg, racial theory ideologist. Later, Protector of the Eastern Occupied Territories.
*Fritz Sauckel, plenipotentiary of the Nazi slave labor program.
*Arthur Seyss-Inquart, instrumental in the Anschluss. Later, Gauleiter of occupied Holland.
*Julius Streicher, incited hatred and murder against the Jews through his weekly newspaper, Der Stürmer.

And people like Karl Dönitz, Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer was found guilty but not executed.

Now, were the trials at Nuremberg unproblematic? Not at all.

For one thing, Julius Streicher was convicted of crimes against humanity for inciting hatred through his newspaper. So what many would say would fall under the protections granted by the principle of Freedom of Speech today was punishable by death in 1945. I would question the fact that incitement of hatred was punished the same way as actually planning, overseeing and conducting the programs of extermination.

Another point is what in my opinion is the most serious drawback of capital punishment, namely the possibility of executing innocent people. Even in this particular case, the arguement "They were all animals so they all deserved it" does not carry any weight. The wrongful execution of an innocent is not acceptable.

And so what makes me feel that there should have been no death-penalties handed out at the trial, is the fact that Alfred Jodl on February 28, 1953 was post-humously exonerated by a German de-Nazification court, which found him not guilty of crimes under international law. As such, there was at least one wrongful execution - and that was one too many.

They deserved their executions, plain and simple.No question about it. The question is whether that gives someone the right to administer said execution.

They simply got what they deserve.:sniper: DEATH!

To those who said it's impossible to find anything good about Nazis: Schlinders List.

I don't believe in the Death Penalty, I don't think these people should have been executed. A lot of people never forgave themselves for what they did in WWII, not to mention that quite a few committed suicide. The remainder could just be kept in prison.

There is a distinctions between what one deserves and what is morally justifiable. Many that live today deserve to be painfully tortured to death, but no one with any sense of decency would carry out the torture because it makes them no better than the one deserving the torture.

Why not?

Consider this: By coercively inflicting pain or damage on the person or property of another human without his consent, an individual renounces his humanity. He was human before, but at the moment of his transgression he ceases to be human. Since he is no longer a human, he no longer possesses rights; he is a brute beast like the lions and muskrats, and anyone is free to treat him however he pleases. Thus, there is nothing wrong with torturing or killing a murderer.

Torture and homicide are not bad in the abstract; it is a massive evasion of reason and context to claim that they are. Torture and homicide are only evil when they are performed upon willing human victims by willing human actors; in any other case it is morally neutral.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi
Think about it.
That presumes that every individual has committed some immoral act at some point in his life, which is simply not the case.

-snip-
You need to talk to someone on this forum called "Melkor Unchained". Because you have obviously spent too much time reading the wrong kind of book. :p

I think that they deserved to die, but after their capture we did not have the authority to kill them. When captive they have no ability to continue to hurt others; there's no reason to kill them. They could have been just left to rot, and that'd be a more severe punishment than killing them anyway.

I think that they deserved to die, but after their capture we did not have the authority to kill them. When captive they have no ability to continue to hurt others; there's no reason to kill them. They could have been just left to rot, and that'd be a more severe punishment than killing them anyway.

The reason for executing criminals is not deterrence, or to keep any particular criminal from committing more crimes. It is punishment, period.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi
Think about it.
That presumes that every individual has committed some immoral act at some point in his life, which is simply not the case.
No. It is also an example of the domino-effect. For example, if you take the eye of someone who has taken your brothers eye, then someone may take yours, and someone may take theirs etc etc. Where does it stop?

The reason for executing criminals is not deterrence, or to keep any particular criminal from committing more crimes. It is punishment, period.
No. At least in the criminal systems of the western world, deterrence plays a major role. One does not punish just for the sake of punishment.

I’m glad to see that most of my fellow NSers are at least consistent in their beliefs.

No. It is also an example of the domino-effect. For example, if you take the eye of someone who has taken your brothers eye, then someone may take yours, and someone may take theirs etc etc. Where does it stop?
It stops after the punishment of the original transgressor. Punishing a transgressor is not in itself a transgression; thus, it does not deserve punishment itself.

No. At least in the criminal systems of the western world, deterrence plays a major role.
Then those symptoms have a fundamental philosophical error, don't they?

One does not punish just for the sake of punishment.

Why not? Justice is: everyone getting what he exactly deserves. This means that punishment is desirable for its own sake, as a means of providing the guilty with precisely what they deserve.

Certainly, it's not possible to give everyone exactly what he deserves (for example, you can't bring a murder victim back from the dead), but some headway is better than none at all.

...but some headway is better than none at all.
Why?

If punishment is not giving exactly what someone deserves, then suddenly your argument loses a lot of its impact, doesn't it?

It stops after the punishment of the original transgressor. Punishing a transgressor is not in itself a transgression; thus, it does not deserve punishment itself.
Finally, someone else who gets it. Not that anyone else will be swayed by this argument, but Gandhi's little throw-away comment gets far too much coverage out of no philosophical substance.

Why?

If punishment is not giving exactly what someone deserves, then suddenly your argument loses a lot of its impact, doesn't it?

Justice is a goal at the end of a continuum; it is not atomic.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Can't say it is consistent to my general opposition to capital punishment, but then again, I find consistency something I only look for in certain foods.

No doubt there are people whose hearts bleed for poor little Goering and cry at night for the injustice done to Himmler, but such persons are really invited to be very very fruitful, all by themselves.

I am for the death penalty so I obviously think that these "people" got what they deserve. We must go back to the old ways in our punishment. An eye for an eye.:rolleyes:
Eye for an eye, eh? So shouldn't you commit genocide on them? 'Eye for an eye' is nohing other than a thinly veiled justification for revenge. The burning desire for revenge present in the victims of injustice is hardly a solid foundation upon which to stage a 'fair trial'. You seemed to misunderstand Ghandi quote "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". It clearly is not a law enforcement theory (as you suggested), it is a refernece to the illogical nature of the theory. If you were to actually think laterally rather than rebutt the literal quote, than you would find that the meaning is that there are too many crimes in the world to punish in this way.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." ~ Gandhi

...Gandhi was a pussy.

...Gandhi was a pussy.


you have a cool name. ism + stan unbeatable tims!!

I am for the death penalty so I obviously think that these "people" got what they deserve. We must go back to the old ways in our punishment. An eye for an eye.
Then I guess you would support the death penalty for Israeli soldiers who murder innocent civilians?

Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order (Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order)

Israelis Kill 19 In Gaza Raids (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37726-2004May18.html)

Israeli forces kill “unarmed, wounded” Palestinian (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/israeli_forces_kill_unarmed_wounded_palestinian.htm)

Israeli Court acquits soldier who “confirmed kill” a Palestinian Child (http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15033&Itemid=1)

Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1563273,00.html)

What did you say earlier about Ghandi?

I dont care what Gandhi said...he was a pacifist...he new nothing of law and order/punishment.
I see by your comments that you honestly think you know about "law and order/punishment"? :(

Personally, I am against the death penalty.

Why not?

Consider this: By coercively inflicting pain or damage on the person or property of another human without his consent, an individual renounces his humanity. He was human before, but at the moment of his transgression he ceases to be human. Since he is no longer a human, he no longer possesses rights; he is a brute beast like the lions and muskrats, and anyone is free to treat him however he pleases. Thus, there is nothing wrong with torturing or killing a murderer.Really?! I wasn't aware. I would have assumed that this would have made the individual more human. After all we are just a bunch of animals. The rule being broken here is a civil law, not a natural one (logically, if it was a natural law he wouldn't have broken it- as that would be against his nature). Logically then, you should only punish a civil crime civilly. Life is natural, but freedom is civil. Therefore, civil crime (which is all 'crime') could be punished by the restriciton of ones freedom (jail), but not with death.

Torture and homicide are not bad in the abstract; it is a massive evasion of reason and context to claim that they are. Torture and homicide are only evil when they are performed upon willing human victims by willing human actors; in any other case it is morally neutral.
WTF? That really doesn't add up. Surely under that twisted interpretation the Nazis were 'morally nuetral', and thus not subject to punishment at all?
That presumes that every individual has committed some immoral act at some point in his life, which is simply not the case.Isn't it? You find me someone who hasn't comitted an 'immoral act' in the eyes of anyone anywhere...

Nuremberg was a show-trial. It served its purpose. Just don't mistake it for justice.

The reason for executing criminals is not deterrence, or to keep any particular criminal from committing more crimes. It is punishment, period.
Who is responsible for dispensing the punishment, under whose authority, according to which moral code?

I am against the death penalty but feel that the executions of that Nazi scum were *very* justified! :mad:

Who is responsible for dispensing the punishment, under whose authority, according to which moral code?

Those Who Can, by what ever means present.


So, basically, you are crying about the injustice done to Goering?

It stops after the punishment of the original transgressor. Punishing a transgressor is not in itself a transgression; thus, it does not deserve punishment itself.
According to the punisher, right?


Why not? Justice is: everyone getting what he exactly deserves. This means that punishment is desirable for its own sake, as a means of providing the guilty with precisely what they deserve.Who deserves what?

Finally, someone else who gets it. Not that anyone else will be swayed by this argument, but Gandhi's little throw-away comment gets far too much coverage out of no philosophical substance.I would have to disagree with you there, fiddles. If considered only from an objectivly, yes the logic is flawed. But we are not objective creatures, and decisions are made subjectively. So the punishment of a 'transgressor' by an unquestionable and universally accepted authority on a definite and proven crime, according to a universally accepted and 'correct' moral code is certainly where the eye for an eye effect ends. However it is when someone happens to disagree with the punisher that the domino effect begins. After all, the Nazis weren't killing the Jews for fun, they were dishing out justice. Nazi justice.

...Gandhi was a pussy.
Of course you are the world's leading authority on pussy? :rolleyes:

I am against the death penalty but feel that the executions of that Nazi scum were *very* justified! :mad:
Than you are a hypocrite.

Than you are a hypocrite.


So you ARE a defender of Nazi's!

Those Who Can, by what ever means present.
Agreed, those who can, by what means available to them, according to their own code. This is the way things are, but it is not 'justice'. Applying this theory, if the Nazis had won WW2, the allies should/would have been hung for war crimes (according to the Nazi code of what is right and wrong).

So, basically, you are crying about the injustice done to Goering?
I'm not crying about anything. I am just pointing out that there is no justice in the death penalty(logically, not morally).

Agreed, those who can, by what means available to them, according to their own code. This is the way things are, but it is not 'justice'. Applying this theory, if the Nazis had won WW2, the allies should/would have been hung for war crimes (according to the Nazi code of what is right and wrong).


I'm not crying about anything. I am just pointing out that there is no justice in the death penalty(logically, not morally).

So what?

The Problem was not the existence of a moral code, or moral behaviour, or moral anything, but the problem at hand was the existence of Goering, Himmler, Hitler and the rest.

The task at hand: to produce the solution of the problem at hand.

And nothing else matters...

I have my own arguments against capital punishment in general, but I'd say it's clear as a clockbell that those general matters can wait till the task at hand have been taken care of.


We live - I relate to it in my sig - in a world in which moral problems have grown in complexity.

But! - and here I differ starkly from the extreme left - complexity is no excuse to put off getting the things that need doing, done.

So you ARE a defender of Nazi's!
It has nothing to do with Nazis (no apostrophe required). I was pointing out that the 'Heavenly Sex' both supported the execution of Nazis, and claims to be against the death penalty. Hypocrisy.

It has nothing to do with Nazis (no apostrophe required). I was pointing out that the 'Heavenly Sex' both supported the execution of Nazis, and claims to be against the death penalty. Hypocrisy.


Hipocrisy is in the eye of the beholder - therefore: quite irrelevant.

It has everything to do with Nazi's.

I don't like capital punishment, and I don't like Hitler.
I am not going to let my dislike of one thing stop me from doing something about the other thing.
Gordian knots exist to be severed.

Why not?

Consider this: By coercively inflicting pain or damage on the person or property of another human without his consent, an individual renounces his humanity. He was human before, but at the moment of his transgression he ceases to be human. Since he is no longer a human, he no longer possesses rights; he is a brute beast like the lions and muskrats, and anyone is free to treat him however he pleases. Thus, there is nothing wrong with torturing or killing a murderer.That's cute. There is a major flaw in your arguementation though.
I agree with the first bit to some degree. Someone that commits heinous crimes against another human being certainly deserves to have these things committed towards them. However, doing any of this requires the sacrifice of one's own humanity. By being inhumane, you cease to be human. This has nothing to do with whom you're doing it to. Let me repeat: While it may be alright for someone inhumane to suffer inhumane treatment, this does not result in other humans treating them as they treated others without becoming inhuman theirselves.

I don't hold people that try to prove how human they by advocating inhumane behavior towards those that are inhumane in very high esteem.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

So what?So then it can't be 'justice' (in the metaphysical terms of the word).

The Problem was not the existence of a moral code, or moral behaviour, or moral anything, but the problem at hand was the existence of Goering, Himmler, Hitler and the rest. That was the problem for the allies, yes. It was not a problem for the Nazis, however. Had the Nazis had won, than the existence of these individuals would not have been a problem. I do agree with you that these individuals were terrible (as we share a very similar moral code handed to us by western culture). However, killing these men is not justice. It is revenge. I'll quote myself as to why:
Really?! I wasn't aware. I would have assumed that this would have made the individual more human. After all we are just a bunch of animals. The rule being broken here is a civil law, not a natural one (logically, if it was a natural law he wouldn't have broken it- as that would be against his nature). Logically then, you should only punish a civil crime civilly. Life is natural, but freedom is civil. Therefore, civil crime (which is all 'crime') could be punished by the restriciton of ones freedom (jail), but not with death.

The task at hand: to produce the solution of the problem at hand.

And nothing else matters...

I have my own arguments against capital punishment in general, but I'd say it's clear as a clockbell that those general matters can wait till the task at hand have been taken care of.

We live - I relate to it in my sig - in a world in which moral problems have grown in complexity.

But! - and here I differ starkly from the extreme left - complexity is no excuse to put off getting the things that need doing, done.
Thats great. But don't be deluded into thinking you are handing out justice.

So then it can't be 'justice' (in the metaphysical terms of the word).

That was the problem for the allies, yes. It was not a problem for the Nazis, however. Had the Nazis had won, than the existence of these individuals would not have been a problem. I do agree with you that these individuals were terrible (as we share a very similar moral code handed to us by western culture). However, killing these men is not justice. It is revenge. I'll quote myself as to why:



Thats great. But don't be deluded into thinking you are handing out justice.

I'm a highly practical man... well... at least at times. Which means I am not particularly interested in the ideal of justice - but rather in stopping crime as it happens. It may be - or may not be - justice, but work it does.
'N that's all I ever ask about.

Only fools need a cause that's just
Fools - and children out to make a name.

The problem is not how to name the thing - the problem is how to solve the thing.
And if you had ever seen ( and smelled! ) a middling sized collection of corpses, care of the murderous practices of ( fill in badguy as you please ), you would understand perfectly well that it isn't the name that matters - but the thing itself. And nothing else.

Hipocrisy is in the eye of the beholder - therefore: quite irrelevant.No. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Hypocrisy is pretending to have conviction when one does not.

It has everything to do with Nazi's.My post ('it')had nothing to do with Nazis(No apostrophe required). Don't confuse my post with 'the issue'.

I don't like capital punishment, and I don't like Hitler.
I am not going to let my dislike of one thing stop me from doing something about the other thing.
Gordian knots exist to be severed.
I am not talking about what you believe should have been done to the Nazis. I am not even talking about what I believe should have been done to the Nazis (Go through my posts, Its not there). I am pointing out that the death penalty and justice logically cannot go hand in hand.

Which means I am not particularly interested in the ideal of justice - but rather in stopping crime as it happens. It may be - or may not be - justice, but work it does.


I imagine that should you ever be accused of a crime, you'll become interested in the ideal of justice very quickly.

No. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Hypocrisy is pretending to have conviction when one does not.

My post ('it')had nothing to do with Nazis(No apostrophe required). Don't confuse my post with 'the issue'.


I am not talking about what you believe should have been done to the Nazis. I am not even talking about what I believe should have been done to the Nazis (Go through my posts, Its not there). I am pointing out that the death penalty and justice logically cannot go hand in hand.


Than you may be better off talking about that particular problem in a thread which is about death penalty in general, rather than obfuscate the clearcut issue of how to improve our beloved planet by ridding the lot of us from the worst kind of ilk.

Meanwhile, if you point out the wrong things in the wrong place, your odds of being cited as an amicus curiae stretch the wrong way...

And I'd go easy on using the hipocrisy word. Use it once too many, and you end up with your spine severed. The Real World don't give quarter.

I'm a highly practical man... well... at least at times. Which means I am not particularly interested in the ideal of justice - but rather in stopping crime as it happens. It may be - or may not be - justice, but work it does.
'N that's all I ever ask about.
Then we aren't directly disagreeing on anything. You claim that the Nazi war criminals should have been killed regardless of what is just. I claim that the death penalty cannot be just. No contradiction there.

Only fools need a cause that's just
Fools - and children out to make a name.

The problem is not how to name the thing - the problem is how to solve the thing.
And if you had ever seen ( and smelled! ) a middling sized collection of corpses, care of the murderous practices of ( fill in badguy as you please ), you would understand perfectly well that it isn't the name that matters - but the thing itself. And nothing else.
I have not yet argued to the contrary. Perhaps I would assert the need to 'get things done' upon seeing and smelling a mound of corpses, and perhaps I wouldn't. I would however, regardless of the choice I made, not mistake 'getting things done' for justice. That is my arguement. Out of curiousity(not faciscious) have you actually seen a mound of corpses?:eek: Where? What were you doing?

Than you may be better off talking about that particular problem in a thread which is about death penalty in general, rather than obfuscate the clearcut issue of how to improve our beloved planet by ridding the lot of us from the worst kind of ilk.Why? Consider executing a Nazi the extremest possible example of the death penalty. Do they deserve to die? Yes. Does that make it ok to kill them? That is another thing entirely.

Not sticking to this in a debate on executing Nazis would be hypocrisy if one believes in this. And there are more ways to remove people from the world than just death. Most dead Nazis I know find their ways onto martyr posters of their followers.

Meanwhile, if you point out the wrong things in the wrong place, your odds of being cited as an amicus curiae stretch the wrong way... This isn't the wrong place to debate whether the death penalty is ever applicable.

Really?! I wasn't aware. I would have assumed that this would have made the individual more human. After all we are just a bunch of animals.
We are superior to the brute beasts because our means of survival is our mind rather than our muscles.

Furthermore, murder is not merely a violation of some temporal civil code. As an irrational act, it is indeed a violation of one's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own RATIONAL self-interest to survive. The minute one renounces reason, he is entirely capable of acting in a matter contrary to his nature, and thus he has renounced his humanity as well.

WTF? That really doesn't add up. Surely under that twisted interpretation the Nazis were 'morally nuetral', and thus not subject to punishment at all?
Nope, because Nazis were human at the time they committed their acts. They did not cease to become human until after those acts had already been committed.

Humanity ends when one commits an evil act and not a moment before.


Isn't it? You find me someone who hasn't comitted an 'immoral act' in the eyes of anyone anywhere...
Your challenge assumes that morality is relative, which is also false. Morality is a matter of objective fact; thus, what matters is not whether or not a given individual has committed an act that someone considers evil, but rather whether or not the individual has committed an act that actually is evil.

Then we aren't directly disagreeing on anything. You claim that the Nazi war criminals should have been killed regardless of what is just. I claim that the death penalty cannot be just. No contradiction there.


I have not yet argued to the contrary. Perhaps I would assert the need to 'get things done' upon seeing and smelling a mound of corpses, and perhaps I wouldn't. I would however, regardless of the choice I made, not mistake 'getting things done' for justice. That is my arguement. Out of curiousity(not faciscious) have you actually seen a mound of corpses?:eek: Where? What were you doing?

Let me assure you that in anything over 10 years of military service you can't help running across severe evidence of the charming practise called genocide or ethnocide. You may forget about the sight. But you'll never forget the smell.

Africa - good place to see it. Chad. Rwanda. Now Sudan - didn't see it, but...

It happens all over the globe, actually. I've sort of lost count over the years. There's always someone to argue - usually from a safe distance - that the offending side actually had justice on their hand. That someone might even fool the public. He might be a great talker or writer. Heck, he might even be right!

But proving the justice of something doesn't turn it into a right. In fact, I don't care greatly about the rights and the wrongs. All I ever care about are very simple things such as:
-making sure that whoever did it doesn't get to do it again.
-and making sure it doesn't happen on MY watch.

If you care about results, you can't afford to get bogged down in the metaphysics of it.
Justice, hipocrisy, moral... those words are abstractions.
All they ever do is obscure the reality.

Yes, I'm arguing that not just being responsible, but actually ORDERING the killing of 10 million people, is a thing so horrific that no abstraction can be allowed to get in the way of putting a stop to it.

I think a 'genocide' of 100 people is something I can sort of size up, mentally.
It's a field with 10 rows of 10 corpses each.
A corpse is a human remainder.
Someone actually took the effort of ending a human life.
Someone did it 10 by 10 times.
Now you get the scale of 100 human lifes ended. Maybe.

Try multiplying 100 by 100.
10,000 corpses. Can you see 'em? Smell 'em?
Then do it again.
Our bodycount is now 1 million.
Just 10 times more, and you have reached the magical number.

You may argue that killing Hitler isn't just.

Maybe it ain't just - I don't pretend to know - but it sho'nuff feels right.

Than you may be better off talking about that particular problem in a thread which is about death penalty in general, rather than obfuscate the clearcut issue of how to improve our beloved planet by ridding the lot of us from the worst kind of ilk.Perhaps if you checked the post you originally responded to (in error confusing me as Nazi supporter) before you did so, you would have found that I was pointing out the illegitemacy of an 'eye for an eye' approach to the execution of Nazi war criminals. Quite relevant actually, it was you who forced me to reiterate over and over my point on the logic of the death penalty (which was initially a one-off response) upon your misconstrued arguements misdirected at my stance. If there was any obfuscation, it was a result of your inability to read into the context of the post of a supposed Nazi supporter.

Meanwhile, if you point out the wrong things in the wrong place, your odds of being cited as an amicus curiae stretch the wrong way... As I have said above, I was not pointing out the 'wrong things in the wrong place' so much as you failed to read the subject of your criticism. My post was a relevant criticism of another opinion on the treatmen of Nazi war criminals, through abstraction and application of logic. In respeonse to a post this is perfectly relevant. Should I enter the thread with the above point as an aimless opinion, then obfuscation would indeed be at hand. However, it is the case that you interpreted it to be so when it was not. If you are upset with the way things ave gone, then perhaps you should be sure that you truly understand that which you criticise.

And I'd go easy on using the hipocrisy word. Use it once too many, and you end up with your spine severed. The Real World don't give quarter. My use of the word 'hypocrite'(with a 'y') was a one-off criticism of another poster for being just that. The subsequent repetition was again due to your poorly concieved allegation that I supported Nazis (oddly enough, you extracted this from a five word post: "Then you are a hypocrite"). The word was subject to repetition only because you again failed to understand the context in which it was used.

If I can offer any advice it would be to be sure to read into the context of a post before blindly criticising it.

According to the punisher, right?

No, according to objective moral fact.

That's cute. There is a major flaw in your arguementation though.
I agree with the first bit to some degree. Someone that commits heinous crimes against another human being certainly deserves to have these things committed towards them. However, doing any of this requires the sacrifice of one's own humanity. By being inhumane, you cease to be human.

False.

You are committing a massive evasion of reason and context. An act considered in the abstract, categorically, is neither good nor evil. A particular INSTANCE of an act in a particular CONTEXT is either good or evil.

Perhaps if you checked the post you originally responded to (in error confusing me as Nazi supporter) before you did so, you would have found that I was pointing out the illegitemacy of an 'eye for an eye' approach to the execution of Nazi war criminals. Quite relevant actually, it was you who forced me to reiterate over and over my point on the logic of the death penalty (which was initially a one-off response) upon your misconstrued arguements misdirected at my stance. If there was any obfuscation, it was a result of your inability to read into the context of the post of a supposed Nazi supporter.

As I have said above, I was not pointing out the 'wrong things in the wrong place' so much as you failed to read the subject of your criticism. My post was a relevant criticism of another opinion on the treatmen of Nazi war criminals, through abstraction and application of logic. In respeonse to a post this is perfectly relevant. Should I enter the thread with the above point as an aimless opinion, then obfuscation would indeed be at hand. However, it is the case that you interpreted it to be so when it was not. If you are upset with the way things ave gone, then perhaps you should be sure that you truly understand that which you criticise.

My use of the word 'hypocrite'(with a 'y') was a one-off criticism of another poster for being just that. The subsequent repetition was again due to your poorly concieved allegation that I supported Nazis (oddly enough, you extracted this from a five word post: "Then you are a hypocrite"). The word was subject to repetition only because you again failed to understand the context in which it was used.

If I can offer any advice it would be to be sure to read into the context of a post before blindly criticising it.


[High Horse]
I guess that comes from being unable to look at things from the gut-level.
If a quote can get taken out of context, it will be taken out of context.
Prepare for it to happen.
Getting things so that your words look good regardless of context is your own problem.
Soundbiting is a fine art - and those who don't master it bite the dust.

Now, when the public decides to build a gallows to hang Hitler, any realist understands that he has the choice between A] cheering the hanging, B] not saying a word, or C] to criticise the practise of hanging and run the risk of being the next one on the gibbet.

It's about Moral Clarity - no one who chose for it ever suffered a bad result because of it - while failing to choose Moral Clarity ALWAYS backfires.
[/high horse]

We are superior to the brute beasts because our means of survival is our mind rather than our muscles. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The above could also be true of some of the more intelligent species around the world (Wolves, chimpanzees, Orcas...)

Furthermore, murder is not merely a violation of some temporal civil code. As an irrational act, it is indeed a violation of one's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own RATIONAL self-interest to survive. The minute one renounces reason, he is entirely capable of acting in a matter contrary to his nature, and thus he has renounced his humanity as well. No. Nature is not based upon reason, it is based upon instinct. You cannot violate your own nature unless you are forced to, otherwise you just wouldn't. For example, a cow is a herbivore, a cow would not eat meat unless it was absolutely forced as eating meat is not in it's nature. You cannot renounce your nature, as it is what you are (Even if the cow was forced to eat meat, it is still a herbivore).


Nope, because Nazis were human at the time they committed their acts. They did not cease to become human until after those acts had already been committed. However, in your theory you stated that both the victim and the perpetrator had to be willing in order for the crime to be 'evil' (Whatever 'evil' is).

Humanity ends when one commits an evil act and not a moment before.What was evil again? Different people keep telling me different things...


Your challenge assumes that morality is relative, which is also false. Morality is a matter of objective fact; thus, what matters is not whether or not a given individual has committed an act that someone considers evil, but rather whether or not the individual has committed an act that actually is evil.Really?! It seems I have been misinformed all of this time!:( Where can I get a hard copy of this 'Morality of objective fact'?

No, according to objective moral fact.
Oh, right, sorry.

[High Horse]
I guess that comes from being unable to look at things from the gut-level.
If a quote can get taken out of context, it will be taken out of context.
Prepare for it to happen.
Getting things so that your words look good regardless of context is your own problem.
Soundbiting is a fine art - and those who don't master it bite the dust.

Now, when the public decides to build a gallows to hang Hitler, any realist understands that he has the choice between A] cheering the hanging, B] not saying a word, or C] to criticise the practise of hanging and run the risk of being the next one on the gibbet.

It's about Moral Clarity - no one who chose for it ever suffered a bad result because of it - while failing to choose Moral Clarity ALWAYS backfires.
[/high horse]
All things can be taken out of context, and it is not my responsibility if they are. You are just trying to dodge the responsibility for misunderstanding my post and consequently admitting error by trying to insinuate that I wasn't opinionated enough(Now that IS rich). Furhtermore, Hitler wasn't hung ( Nitpicking, I know. But that is a huge mistake to make). There is no true moral clarity, just degrees of social acceptability.

All things can be taken out of context, and it is not my responsibility if they are. You are just trying to dodge the responsibility for misunderstanding my post and consequently admitting error by trying to insinuate that I wasn't opinionated enough(Now that IS rich). Furhtermore, Hitler wasn't hung ( Nitpicking, I know. But that is a huge mistake to make). There is no true moral clarity, just degrees of social acceptability.

No sir.

You produce something that can't stand on its own feet - your tough cookies if it blows up into your face.

Period.

Even the DUMBEST spinmeister God ever made would make you look like Judas Ischariot for failing to get on the right bandwagon.

It's 2006. Swiftboating is a verb. Transitive. To Swiftboat someone.

No sir.

You produce something that can't stand on its own feet - your tough cookies if it blows up into your face. M arguement did stand 'on its own two feet' quite well as a counter-arguement to a previous post. You just misunderstood and saw it as an independant comment. Even if that were the case, the post (while not being all too relevant) would still have stood well. You are entirely responsible for misinterpreting, not I. In what reality would I be responsible for the stupidity of those who read my posts? If you understand, good. If not, too bad.

Period. Thats right, the punctuation proceeding the word period is indeed a 'peroid'. ('Period' should only be used as a verbal figure of speech for this reason).

Even the DUMBEST spinmeister God ever made would make you look like Judas Ischariot for failing to get on the right bandwagon.Yeah, the last thing this world needs is objectivity.:rolleyes:

[deep voice]
GreaterPacificNations does NOT support hanging Hitler.
*images of BergenBelsen - made extra gruesome with BluScreen*
GreaterPacificNations thinks it's immoral to shoot Goering down.
*out of context documentary evidence of GPN-post*
*solemn music + digital flames charring a black-and-white-picture of some kid with magen-David on jacket, actually produced in 2005 with PaintShopPro*
GreaterPacificNations thinks that killing this child should go unpunished.
*camera zooms in on pretty little girl, 8 years old, concerned, long blonde hair, the works, and lilting voice which seems on the verge of breaking into tears*
GreaterPacificNations says he thinks hanging childmolesters is immoral!
*mother's voice, off-screen, sounds VERY concerned, a picture of any decent looking actress in her 30ies - subtitles say it is the voice of Ms A ( Amy) Verage Voter*
GreaterPacificNations is opposed to capital punishment.
I don't trust him to protect my daughter.
Don't trust him to protect your children...
*American Flag comes into view*
[deep voice]
Paid for by the Committee of NationStatesPosters for Truth.



You may think this is a spurious example - but I tell you that nothing on this planet could influence me enough to do something as incredibly stupid as questioning the rightness of capital punishment in a thread that is as Godwinned as a burning Reichstag!

i am against capital punishment as making the nazis live in jails with very strict rules and not ever allowing them out would be a punishment that could have been given. they did not deserve to live. more effort should have been made to catch the ones in south america. they too should have been locked up with nothing to do but reflect on their cruelties and perhaps develop a conscience.

As an aside: this is very much the point where GreaterPacificNations fell silent.

Now, the odd thing is, the SAME thing happened exactly during the Kerry campaign. Total Silence.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Post-factum defense against Swiftboating isn't possible.
Your defense against getting Swiftboated is Message Discipline: never EVER send a message that can be turned into a Swiftboating.

That is what the Bushies mean with Moral Clarity - and I wont call 'em wrong.

PS: Save the Planet - Hang a Nazi!

You may think this is a spurious example - but I tell you that nothing on this planet could influence me enough to do something as incredibly stupid as questioning the rightness of capital punishment in a thread that is as Godwinned as a burning Reichstag!It's not spurious, it's what he thinks. It's what I think. Just because they did something evil does not mean you automatically get the 'right' to do evil back to them. If it helps, yes I use absolute judgement; I don't think relativism is appropriate for everything. Sure, these guys deserve to die. But that doesn't mean we should kill them, doesn't mean we should torture them, doesn't mean you have the right to do so. They can go to jail for the rest of their lives, and that is punishment enough - every day knowing why you're in there, every day going through the mindnumbing routine, ever day knowing that not a damn person in the world cares about your life, save that it continue to punish you more. That's real punishment, not some three second death. Also, note that not everyone believes in a god, or a god that wants to punish people, so obviously the punishment must occur while the prisoner is alive for it to even be considered 'punishment'. Is the death sentence justified sometimes? Yes it is, such as when we cannot afford to keep the prisoner in custody without a very real chance of his escaping to do more harm. The primary reason for the justice system is to protect society, not to exact vengeance. It punishes to try to reform people and let them enter society again as productive individuals, but that is not its main purpose.

It's not spurious, it's what he thinks. It's what I think. Just because they did something evil does not mean you automatically get the 'right' to do evil back to them. If it helps, yes I use absolute judgement; I don't think relativism is appropriate for everything. Sure, these guys deserve to die. But that doesn't mean we should kill them, doesn't mean we should torture them, doesn't mean you have the right to do so. They can go to jail for the rest of their lives, and that is punishment enough - every day knowing why you're in there, every day going through the mindnumbing routine, ever day knowing that not a damn person in the world cares about your life, save that it continue to punish you more. That's real punishment, not some three second death. Also, note that not everyone believes in a god, or a god that wants to punish people, so obviously the punishment must occur while the prisoner is alive for it to even be considered 'punishment'. Is the death sentence justified sometimes? Yes it is, such as when we cannot afford to keep the prisoner in custody without a very real chance of his escaping to do more harm. The primary reason for the justice system is to protect society, not to exact vengeance. It punishes to try to reform people and let them enter society again as productive individuals, but that is not its main purpose.


Basically, you're thinking in terms of defending Society - several million deaths AFTER that Society and it's defense has broken down.
Won't work.
Won't do.
Won't wash.

Oh - and what is the current opinion in the poll?

What I'm saying is: not only do I think people who categorically oppose Capital Punishment are dead wrong - I also think that they are taking a position that could easily have quite severe real life consequences.
And that is without taking account of the fact that at certain levels of crime, retribution and deterrence are the opnly feasible responses of any Society with a wish to continue it's existence.

Basically, you're thinking in terms of defending Society - several million deaths AFTER that Society and it's defense has broken down.
Won't work.
Won't do.
Won't wash.When the Nazi leaders were captured, we had them in custody and were in full control over them. Our society, which was still quite functional. There was no need to kill them save for some people's thirst for vengeance.

When the Nazi leaders were captured, we had them in custody and were in full control over them. Our society, which was still quite functional. There was no need to kill them save for some people's thirst for vengeance.


In other words... you don't approve of hanging Hitler?
Can we take that as a matter of record?

In other words... you don't approve of hanging Hitler?
Can we take that as a matter of record?You may. Why don't you put me in your sig too; that'd be cool. I haven't been in someone else's sig before. :)

You may. Why don't you put me in your sig too; that'd be cool. I haven't been in someone else's sig before. :)

Naw. I'm trying to teach him an essential lesson in communications-management.

See, I'm kinda pink from an American point of view, and I think it's time that the libs get their act together, and learn to be disciplined and effective in getting their points of view across.

But the 'ad' I made is a realistic example of what would actually happen if you are not very very focussed and realistic about your political stances.

This is pretty much what happened IRL - and the total silence from the Kerry Camp lasted day after day, broken only by a 'Help is on the way' message - that totally missed the target.

GPN never said or implied that he wouldn't hang a child molester.
The topic never ever came up!
But if this were real, the charge would be made - and while he patiently and reasonably explained that he never said anything of the sort, 45 out of 100 voters would conclude that he said at least something of the sort.

[deep voice]
*snip*

You may think this is a spurious example - but I tell you that nothing on this planet could influence me enough to do something as incredibly stupid as questioning the rightness of capital punishment in a thread that is as Godwinned as a burning Reichstag!
:p You're trying to punish me for not jumping of the bandwagon?! Thats funny. How does this sound: "BogMarsh is a Communist!" During our whole conversation on the fall of the Nazi regime (to the *communists*, it was the russians who were responsible for the coup de gras) you did not once decry communism! Or homosexuality (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html)! Or even Mussolini (The father of Fascism)! Thereby, using Bogmarshian logic, you are a Homosexual communist who is against the stringing up of Mussolini by his balls.

Furthermore, wouldn't one ask how I could be against something that never happened? Hitler wasn't hung, he comitted suicide in his bunker.

GPN never said or implied that he wouldn't hang a child molester.
The topic never ever came up!But if this were real, the charge would be made - and while he patiently and reasonably explained that he never said anything of the sort, 45 out of 100 voters would conclude that he said at least something of the sort. Then you would also have to answer to allegations of supporting child-molesterers. I don't recall anyhing from Bogmarsh about child molstation. Who said I was out for voters?:confused: Maybe I want to take an opinion based on logic, and sense (and when has a polititian ever done that?). The response to give to that common kind of critisism (known as unsubstansiated mudslinging), is to discredit the perpetrator as a shameless mudslinger. Then the only 'votes' you would lose would be that of the avid supporters of the mudslinger, which due to the fact that he/she is prone to mudslinging probably doesn't have any real policies or popular support beyond a few of the hard right christian churches.

You need to decide whether or not your opinions are indeed yours. It would seem you are very easily influenced by popular opinion, and will jump on the next bandwagon that goes rolling by (like say...Nazism?). You need to stop this idea of an imaginary democracy in your head, constantly threatening to vote you out if you stray too far from social norms. Remember, you are an individual, and are entitled to your own opinions free from persecution.

Seeing I am not in government, I do not have to spindoctor my views and sweeten them for the public (Or moral CLARITY, as you call it:p ). Even if I was, this is an anonymous front for the expression of my opinions. It doesn't matter who You are on the Internet, you can say whatever you want.

See, I'm kinda pink from an American point of view, and I think it's time that the libs get their act together, and learn to be disciplined and effective in getting their points of view across. Well you are certainly not 'pink' from an Australian perspective. I would put you as having a mixture between the Nationals' (Our furthest right, barring religious orgs) and an Orwellian self-censoring all-pervasive political stance


As an aside: this is very much the point where GreaterPacificNations fell silent. No, this is very much the point where GreaterPacificNations went to sleep. I am in Australia you know.

To wrap up, I think you are mentally unsound. Either that, or you have been subject to government brainwashing from a young age. You seem to be trying to encourage accountablility to the majority for free speech. Remember that Nas=zism was a well marketed and popular 'bandwagon' too, and one would definitely have been the subject of criticism should he had not jumped on the band wagon. It is because of people like yourself that the Nazi regime could have ever come to power (Well, actually, not JUST like you. I have never met someone who actively and knowingly censors themselves).
The Nazis didn't take power, like the communists, they were voted!
You strange strange person.

I think it's a mistake to treat society like it's a person. A society cannot feel a need for revenge, only on the individual level can it feel such a way. Mob mentalities are in their own category and almost never lead to a positive outcome.

This makes sense to me...

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The above could also be true of some of the more intelligent species around the world (Wolves, chimpanzees, Orcas...)
All humans operate by means of reason. If he does not operate by means of reason, he is not a human.

There is more to being a human than mere biology.


However, in your theory you stated that both the victim and the perpetrator had to be willing in order for the crime to be 'evil' (Whatever 'evil' is).
No, I said only the PERPETRATOR must be willing.

If you cannot parse basic English syntax, then don't argue in the English language.

All humans operate by means of reason. If he does not operate by means of reason, he is not a human.

There is more to being a human than mere biology.I think it's incredibly dangerous to limit the definition of human in such a manner. It's completely arbitrary and you could make up any other definition and justify your actions by it. Who is defining reason here? You are, and I'm not so sure I want anyone telling me that some people are human and some are not.

Justice is a goal at the end of a continuum; it is not atomic.
Says who? And why?

All humans operate by means of reason. If he does not operate by means of reason, he is not a human.

There is more to being a human than mere biology.
Is that so? Consider this, if operating by means of reason is an inherent aspect of human nature- why are so many humans 'unreasonable'? Surely you have been in situations where your instincts conflict with your reason. How could this be possible if they were the same thing?

No, I said only the PERPETRATOR must be willing.

If you cannot parse basic English syntax, then don't argue in the English language. Perhaps I misread, why don't we take a look:
Torture and homicide are not bad in the abstract; it is a massive evasion of reason and context to claim that they are. Torture and homicide are only evil when they are performed upon willing human victims by willing human actors; in any other case it is morally neutral.may I ask, if possible, that you choose either Italian or Chinese as your new language of choice, though I am not too proficient in either I should be able to 'parse the basic syntax'.

It seems that you have been avoiding my previous question, raised on a few occasions now, from what transcendant authority do you divine you 'objective moral fact'? Why haven't I heard about about it,? And, where can I find a hard copy of this? Surely a set of rules which can alter my status as a human (should I disobey them), would be common knowledge. Maybe I missed the memo...

I will end this here and now they deserced to die and thats that.

It seems that you have been avoiding my previous question, raised on a few occasions now, from what transcendant authority do you divine you 'objective moral fact'? Why haven't I heard about about it,? And, where can I find a hard copy of this? Surely a set of rules which can alter my status as a human (should I disobey them), would be common knowledge. Maybe I missed the memo...

Of course they are common knowledge. Independently evolving societies the world over have come up with rules that are stunningly parallel. No robbing. No killing. No raping. On some level, morality is hard fact, because humans have realized that society just cannot function without some assurance of personal safety.
On the other hand, I have no idea which specific moral facts are being referred to, since my argument breaks down for just about all except these basic ideals.

First of all....I dont care what Gandhi said...he was a pacifist...he new nothing of law and order/punishment.

Second of all...unless you take back what you said about we should have just let all the Jews die because it wasnt Americas fault, I really cant find you credible on anything holocaust related.

Lol, Gandhi was a trained lawyer.

Would you do that for the devil incarnate?
Let god do his own fighting.

All humans operate by means of reason. If he does not operate by means of reason, he is not a human.
Your reasoning is flawed. Does that mean that you are not a human? Does this mean that we can deny you your basic human rights?

Nuremberg trial was harsh on certain people.
you all know the ones i mean and if you dont then read up on it.

As such i am against the trials.
We as a peoples were enraged at the war and as such cannot be expected to give "Sane" judgement.

"Today you trial us, tommorow the bolsheviks trial you!"
Pretty much sums up my statement.
...
Rawr the fluffle smiley is missing.

I am for the death penalty so I obviously think that these "people" got what they deserve. We must go back to the old ways in our punishment. An eye for an eye.

But I wouldnt expect you to feel that way after openly stating that we shouldnt have stopped the holocaust because it wasnt our problem, as Americans.
Isolationism would have been "going back to the old way". Humanitarian intervention is a new concept.

It stops after the punishment of the original transgressor. Punishing a transgressor is not in itself a transgression; thus, it does not deserve punishment itself.

Depends on who is administering the punishment, and if the punishment fits the crime. With the philosophy "an eye for an eye", this is not guaranteed.

After all, why would you want to punish a robber just by taking away his money, if the reason for his criminal act was that he had no money in the first place?


Then those symptoms have a fundamental philosophical error, don't they?
Symptoms? :confused: I don't know what you're on about.
If you ment "systems" then the answer is No.

The primary reason of the criminal systems in the western world is to prevent people from breaking the law, and if they have broken the law then to prevent them from doing so again.

Why not? Justice is: everyone getting what he exactly deserves. This means that punishment is desirable for its own sake, as a means of providing the guilty with precisely what they deserve.

Certainly, it's not possible to give everyone exactly what he deserves (for example, you can't bring a murder victim back from the dead), but some headway is better than none at all.
No, not exactly. You're using a too general definition of "justice", one that is not directly applicable when debating the usage of laws. Punishment simply for punishments sake accomplishes nothing, and gives no benefits to the society.

And as for your claim that "some headway is better than none at all" - why are you dragging the victim into the discussion as to what the perpetrator deserves? I fail to see your point.