NationStates Jolt Archive

Amnesty International is campaigned for the Bali bomber's death sentence to be commuted to life in prison. I agree whole-heartedly; the death penalty is a cruel and useless bastard of a concept, and Australia's PM John Howard has been hypocritical in his opposition to it. He claims to be against the death penalty and is happy to try and get heroin smugglers off death row but not terrorists. That doesn't sound as bad out loud but it is a blatant double-standard.

Families slam bid to save Bali bombers

September 28, 2007 - 4:22PM

Australians who lost relatives and mates in the 2002 Bali bombings say they're disgusted by an Amnesty International campaign to save three of the bombers from execution.

The Australian arm of the human rights group is urging people to lobby Indonesian authorities to stop the executions as part of Amnesty's ongoing campaign against capital punishment.

The three bombers - who played key roles in the attacks that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians - could face the firing squad soon after Indonesia's Supreme Court rejected their final appeals.

Amnesty International Australia anti-death penalty coordinator Tim Goodwin said the group was ramping up pressure on Indonesian authorities to stay the executions.

"Amnesty is completely and universally opposed to the death penalty in any case," Goodwin said.

The group's website urges Australians to write to Indonesia's ambassador in Australia, calling for the death sentences to be commuted to life imprisonment.

The call comes just days before Australians and Balinese will gather on Monday for the second anniversary of the October 1, 2005 Bali bombings.

Those attacks killed 20 people, including four Australians and 17 other Australians were injured.

Goodwin acknowledged the campaign to save the 2002 bombers could be controversial in Australia.

"I think it will be for some people that want to see the death penalty (carried out)," he said.

"It raises a lot of very difficult issues - these are horrific crimes we are talking about.

"But this is about upholding the value of human rights, not picking and choosing which people deserve to die."

Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission chairman Idfhal Kasim expressed support for the move, saying the death penalty was "unacceptable".

"A request from Amnesty International or other human rights organisations is like moral pressure on the government to change their policy about this punishment," he said.

But Australians who lost loved ones in 2002 are stunned.

NSW Coogee Dolphins member Eric de Haart, whose teammates Clint Thompson and Josh Iliffe died in the blasts, said he was "gobsmacked".

"I honestly can't believe they would expect anyone who has had anything to do with Bali, or who has been associated with Bali, to support that motion," de Haart said.

"That's just beyond belief."

He said the bombers had laughed at their crimes and had shown no remorse.

"There certainly couldn't have been anyone from Amnesty International walking through the morgue like I did, trying to sort through body parts trying to identify my mates."

Indonesian authorities have been tightlipped on when the executions will be carried out, but have indicated Bali is unlikely to be the site for security reasons.

A lawyer for the trio, Achmad Michdan, foreshadowed a formal complaint about the recent Supreme Court verdict, questioning the fairness of the judgement.

He said he had visited the trio two weeks ago.

"They are just waiting, but they are relaxed," Michdan said.

"If they are to be executed, they just want to be executed under the Islamic law.

"And they are ready because they will meet the prophet Mohammad, the mujahids, and beautiful virgins."

Source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/families-slam-bid-to-save-bali-bombers/2007/09/28/1190486553797.html)

That is an AAP article on The Age's website. I would have listed a different one but most now have blogs and the blood lust by some of my idiotic, yobbo countrymen is just too embarrassing.

So, thoughts?

*EDIT*
Added a poll. Not that relevant but the thread got me thinking in this direction.

They should not be executed, especially if they happen to be religious radicals, seeking to make martyrs of themselves. The irony of the contrast between their desires (specifically, to die), and reality there makes keeping them alive as long as possible even sweeter.

In theory, yes. In practice, the justice system in my country is so corrupt and stressed that I don't trust it to hand down death sentences. Sentencing an innocent person to life in prison is bad enough, but at least they might be released one day. If the justice system wants the power of life and death, then first I want to see it demonstrate a sufficient level of responsibility.

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.
So no, terrorists should not be executed.

Hmm, well civilized societies have been doing it for thousands of years...

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.
So no, terrorists should not be executed.

It seems to me that just about the worst fate someone who is willing to kill himself and others for his warped beliefs is to be deprived of the opportunity for either.

That, and watch 'Dancing With The Stars' 24/7. :)

It seems to me that just about the worst fate someone who is willing to kill himself and others for his warped beliefs is to be deprived of the opportunity for either.

That, and watch 'Dancing With The Stars' 24/7. :)

I'd take the death penalty over that, you inhumane monster.

It seems to me that just about the worst fate someone who is willing to kill himself and others for his warped beliefs is to be deprived of the opportunity for either.

That, and watch 'Dancing With The Stars' 24/7. :)

Don't forget repeated swift kicks in the groin.

Don't forget repeated swift kicks in the groin.

I think that should be a common punishment for a lot of crimes and misbehaviors. I think it'll act as chlorine for the genepool. :)

Hmm, well civilized societies have been doing it for thousands of years...

Well civilized societies had slavery for thousands of years...

No, they should not be executed. You always could be mistaken...

Locked away forever will do the trick.

And I would like to humiliate them.

• Atheist terrorist have to listen to TV preachers for the entire day.
• We'll make sure that female Christians get pregnant and in the eight month we'll force an abortion.
• The male Christians will have sex whole day long. Homosexual sex.
• Muslims have to eat 'coq au vin' every day and white Christian women will urinate on the Muslim males.
• The female Muslims will be forced to run around naked.
• Jewish terrorists will always smell some gas in their cage.

Any way, for any kind of terrorist, we'll find something fun.

Your idea of "fun" is somewhat disturbing. :(

So is terrorism.

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.

Sadly, no. Many countries, highly civilised in other fields, still use the death penalty - and have throughout the centuries.

However, death penalty is murder, plain and simple.

Killing a terrorist as he tries to detonate a bomb? Act of self-defence of the society.
Killing a terrorist who's been already arrested and put in gaol? Murder.

And I would like to humiliate them.
Any way, for any kind of terrorist, we'll find something fun.

Your idea of "fun" is somewhat disturbing. :(

Your idea of "fun" is somewhat disturbing. :(

So is terrorism.

And I agree.

The punishment for the atheists is over the top.

So is terrorism. And I agree. The punishment for the atheists is over the top.

Well, the point of democracies should be being better than terrorism, or at least, less disturbing, don't you think so?

Kill them.

If terrorists are kept in jail, eventually some other terrorist will kidnap someone and demand the imprisoned terrorist's release.

Amnesty International is campaigned for the Bali bomber's death sentence to be commuted to life in prison. I agree whole-heartedly; the death penalty is a cruel and useless bastard of a concept, and Australia's PM John Howard has been hypocritical in his opposition to it. He claims to be against the death penalty and is happy to try and get heroin smugglers off death row but not terrorists. That doesn't sound as bad out loud but it is a blatant double-standard.



Source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/families-slam-bid-to-save-bali-bombers/2007/09/28/1190486553797.html)

That is an AAP article on The Age's website. I would have listed a different one but most now have blogs and the blood lust by some of my idiotic, yobbo countrymen is just too embarrassing.

So, thoughts?

They should not be executed. Not because it's "cruel" or "unusual," but because public execution is a cold, clinical procedure by its very nature as a state-funded event. I would be perfectly fine if a civilian who was directly or indirectly affected by their acts murder a terrorist, because it is then and only then that the death of said terrorist becomes a true festival; an intimate act between oppressor and oppressed, wherein the roles are finally reversed. The terrorist deserves at least that much; to be treated not as a piece of meat dying a cow's death, but as a human dying at the hands of those who feel.

Well, the point of democracies should be being better than terrorism, or at least, less disturbing, don't you think so?

So?

We still treat them better than they treat us.

We are talking about terrorists, remember...
They kill, we don't kill. We just make their life miserable.

And it should be broadcasted, the earnings can be used for the victims and the victims their relatives.

Nobody should ever be executed.

Kill them.

If terrorists are kept in jail, eventually some other terrorist will kidnap someone and demand the imprisoned terrorist's release.

When you arrest someone for speeding, kill them. Eventually some other speeder will kidnap someone and demand the imprisoned speeder's release.

:rolleyes: You watch too many american tv-movies.

*Disagrees with death penalty*

*nods*

*leaves*

So? We still treat them better than they treat us. We are talking about terrorists, remember... They kill, we don't kill. We just make their life miserable.

Making someone else's life miserable shoulnd't be a goal. If needed, it could be used as a tool. The goal should be somewhat loftier, like... I don't know, simply living in peace? Once we put them in jail, there is no need for further intervention on them. They're locked away and we're safe.
Revenge usually doesn't accomplish anything but addicting people to sadism.

When you arrest someone for speeding, kill them. Eventually some other speeder will kidnap someone and demand the imprisoned speeder's release.

:rolleyes: You watch too many american tv-movies.

I can site precendence for my statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl

Your's, not so much.

Making someone else's life miserable shoulnd't be a goal. If needed, it could be used as a tool. The goal should be somewhat loftier, like... I don't know, simply living in peace? Once we put them in jail, there is no need for further intervention on them. They're locked away and we're safe.
Revenge usually doesn't accomplish anything but addicting people to sadism.

We could broadcast the whole thing. Profits! I smell $$$$$.

And these could be used to pay the victims, the victims their relatives, the society.

Who's paying world trade center now?

When you arrest someone for speeding, kill them. Eventually some other speeder will kidnap someone and demand the imprisoned speeder's release.

:rolleyes: You watch too many american tv-movies.
To be fair, it's not like taking hostages to secure the release of speeders has ever happened. It has with terrorists, hostages were often taken in attempts by terrorists to secure the release of their comrades. I think it happened quite a bit in the not too distant past with aircraft hijackings.

Anyway, I don't think they should be executed. Use prison instead, but make sure the conditions are terrible. Use forced labour as well, might as well put them to use.

.

However, death penalty is murder, plain and simple.



Death penalty = Guilty
Murder = Innocent (including unborn)

About terrorists, remove this human garbage from existance without fanfare or parade. Don't glory in it or draw it out. It's just business. Executing doesn't necessarily make them martyrs. In the Qur'an is states one is a martyr "slays and is slain". The western perception only requires death, not the additional taking of life.

Maybe the death sentence is the last and only solution to keep murderers, rapistst and terrorists out of our streets. if we dont excecute them, when will we be forced to bring guns to kindergaderns in the name of safety beacuse of htese not excecuted terrorists.... a lifelong sentence is unnessasary, what if tey escape? Kill them i say... :sniper:

Death penalty = Guilty
Murder = Innocent (including unborn)

You're right in there being a difference, but wrong in what the difference is. Murder is illegal killing, the death penalty is generally legal in the countries it's carried out it.

And on topic, nobody should be executed.

Sadly, no. Many countries, highly civilised in other fields, still use the death penalty - and have throughout the centuries.

However, death penalty is murder, plain and simple.

Killing a terrorist as he tries to detonate a bomb? Act of self-defence of the society.
Killing a terrorist who's been already arrested and put in gaol? Murder.
Wrong.

Murder = UNLAWFUL killing of a human being. If the death penalty is lawful in a particular nation, then it is not murder.

EDIT: Ifreann beat me to it!

Wrong.

Murder = UNLAWFUL killing of a human being. If the death penalty is lawful in a particular nation, then it is not murder.

EDIT: Ifreann beat me to it!

Ninja'd

*disappears into the shadows*

I agree whole-heartedly; the death penalty is a cruel and useless bastard of a concept

No, it's not.

Something is only cruel if it's undeserved.

What about making them clean the sewer system with toothbrushes? :D

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.
So no, terrorists should not be executed.

Incorrect.

It is the absence of the death penalty that is barbaric.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, kidnappers, burglars, muggers, wifebeaters, trespassers, vandals, etc. have demonstrated that they wish to destroy civilized society. To refuse to kill them is to allow them to continue in their struggle against civilization; thus, not killing them is distinctly uncivilized.

The only time to even consider the death penalty is in two cases:
(1) EXTREME guilt and EXTREWME reasonbs (e.g. 9/11)
(2) Leaving them alive is almost guaranteed to leave to someone else being killed.

I refuse to have an opinion because wholly the people who are against the death penalty are for abortion. And that sickens and confuses me.

So you'd save your rapists life but not your unborn child's. You need some serious medical counciling. If you can even be cured at all..


Frankly I'd only support the death penalty if it was the victim or victim's family whom decided if the assaliant lived or died. Evidently when it came to a terrorist it would be like a little election because he endangerd many of lives.


It would not work. The punishment would be too random.

A nice looking friendly charming man could go away with nothing maybe.
While another, one who's smelling, looking fat & ugly will get the maximum.

The victims (or the relatives) are bad judges anyway. Aren't they too emotional involved, no?

The abortion thing - maybe you are not aware, but pro abortion people do not recognize a group of cells of 3 month-old as a human being.

That's one reason why they can actual accept abortion.

If it was looking, behaving, feeling, thinking as a human, just a few people would go for abortion.

Anyway, abortion is off topic.

I refuse to have an opinion because wholly the people who are against the death penalty are for abortion. And that sickens and confuses me.


Just because you're not capable of actually dealing with abstract concepts and can only discuss things in terms comfortable to a 4 year old, don't blame us for actually having an intellect that can seperate the two concepts.

No, it's not.

Something is only cruel if it's undeserved.
The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees.
1. Of persons (also transf. and fig. of things): Disposed to inflict suffering; indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain or distress; destitute of kindness or compassion; merciless, pitiless, hard-hearted.
b. absol. = Cruel one.
c. Of actions, etc.: Proceeding from or showing indifference to or pleasure in another's distress.

2. Of men, wild beasts, etc.: Fierce, savage.
b. Of actions, etc. (esp. of contests): Fierce.

3. Severe, strict, rigorous. Obs.

4. Of conditions, circumstances, etc.: Causing or characterized by great suffering; extremely painful or distressing; colloq. = severe, hard.

5. as adv. Cruelly, distressingly; hence as a mere intensive = exceedingly, very. Obs. exc. dial.

6. Comb., as cruel-hearted, -looking adjs.
Link (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50054926?query_type=word&queryword=cruel&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=T9Uj-yvpeQ8-5320&result_place=2)
Incorrect.

It is the absence of the death penalty that is barbaric.

Murderers, rapists, thieves, kidnappers, burglars, muggers, wifebeaters, trespassers, vandals, etc. have demonstrated that they wish to destroy civilized society. To refuse to kill them is to allow them to continue in their struggle against civilization; thus, not killing them is distinctly uncivilized.

False. They have demonstrated that they wish to murder, rape, steal, kidnap, burglarise, mug, beat, trespass and vandalise, respectively. I defy you to prove that a statisically significant number of people convicted of one or more of those crimes claim their motivation was the destruction of civilisation.

I won't be holding my breath.

(1) EXTREME guilt and EXTREWME reasonbs (e.g. 9/11)


What on earth is extreme guilt?

Maybe the death sentence is the last and only solution to keep murderers, rapistst and terrorists out of our streets.

That, or, you know, jail.

a lifelong sentence is unnessasary, what if tey escape?

Killing people should not be a used as a method to eliminate the results of incompetance.

...what if tey escape? Kill them i say... :sniper:

What if they were innocent?

What if they were innocent?

For the innocent people we have some room, uhm, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay)!

What on earth is extreme guilt?

Erm, that should hjave said "EXTREMELY guilty" or something -- basically the ones where they're convictable not beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond nearly any doubt (such as Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald in front of a dozen people).

The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees.

Link (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50054926?query_type=word&queryword=cruel&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=T9Uj-yvpeQ8-5320&result_place=2)

Then the dictionary is wrong, isn't it?

False. They have demonstrated that they wish to murder, rape, steal, kidnap, burglarise, mug, beat, trespass and vandalise, respectively.

In other words, they have acted to further the destruction of civilized society. There is no difference.

Terrorists should be humiliated then excecuted. Take muslims for example.We should cut off their arms and legs and sew a pig's arms and legs to their bodies and perhaps other parts of the pig stuffed into their mouth. They won't get into paradise, assuming it exists (hint:It doesn't.) It will also send a message to other muslims who are thinking about becoming terrorists. And the almost sadistic inhumanity of such an act might even repel people who aren't religous terrorists. It's not like anyone would sympathize with a terrorist on this issue.

Look at it this way: Did he definitely do it? Is he not repentant? Will he eventually die of old age anyway?

If you answered yes to all three, then there's no reason not to kill him.

Amnesty International is campaigned for the Bali bomber's death sentence to be commuted to life in prison. I agree whole-heartedly; the death penalty is a cruel and useless bastard of a concept, and Australia's PM John Howard has been hypocritical in his opposition to it. He claims to be against the death penalty and is happy to try and get heroin smugglers off death row but not terrorists. That doesn't sound as bad out loud but it is a blatant double-standard.



Source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/families-slam-bid-to-save-bali-bombers/2007/09/28/1190486553797.html)

That is an AAP article on The Age's website. I would have listed a different one but most now have blogs and the blood lust by some of my idiotic, yobbo countrymen is just too embarrassing.

So, thoughts?

Ethically speaking the death sentence is wrong. However, logically speaking it removes a detrimental member of society, and thus the burden of supporting him and/or suffering from his actions. Of course, all this assumes we could come-up with a cheaper form of killing dissenters. If we couldn't, then the idea is useless.

They should not be executed, especially if they happen to be religious radicals, seeking to make martyrs of themselves. The irony of the contrast between their desires (specifically, to die), and reality there makes keeping them alive as long as possible even sweeter.

You see, you're worried about justice, I'm worried about logic. I don't give a rat's ass if they suffer. I just want to be logical about it and kill them. I don't care if they're happy about it.

Terrorists should be humiliated then excecuted. Take muslims for example.We should cut off their arms and legs and sew a pig's arms and legs to their bodies and perhaps other parts of the pig stuffed into their mouth. They won't get into paradise, assuming it exists (hint:It doesn't.) It will also send a message to other muslims who are thinking about becoming terrorists. And the almost sadistic inhumanity of such an act might even repel people who aren't religous terrorists. It's not like anyone would sympathize with a terrorist on this issue.

Have you considered submerging them in dog slobber?

No.

I say kill 'em all, but I just finished playing some Warhammer 40,000 and listening to death metal.

Whatever we do, let's do it right. If we want to live in peace, then let's live in awesome peace. If we want to have a world divided by black and white, then let's raze the other half of the world. I am tired of all the half-assedness.

*shrugs and wanders off to take a shower*

Then the dictionary is wrong, isn't it?
The Oxford English Dictionary is wrong about the definition of a rather common English word? I doubt that very highly. I find it more likely that you have your own definition of the word cruel.



In other words, they have acted to further the destruction of civilized society. There is no difference.

You still don't have that proof I asked for? Didn't think so.

Ethically speaking the death sentence is wrong.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Sure it is. Just like lying is. Kant said it would be ethically wrong to lie, even to deceive a murderer. However, lying is often very logical. Since I endorse Machiavelli heartily, and Cesare Borgia is my paragon of a ruler, ethics don't figure into my thinking. Only logic.

Sure it is. Just like lying is. Kant said it would be ethically wrong to lie, even to deceive a murderer. However, lying is often very logical. Since I endorse Machiavelli heartily, and Cesare Borgia is my paragon of a ruler, ethics don't figure into my thinking. Only logic.

Of course, ethics vary from personage to personage.

Sure it is. Just like lying is. Kant said it would be ethically wrong to lie, even to deceive a murderer.

Kant was wrong.

Kant was an idiot.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She demonstrated that clearly and conclusively.

Of course, ethics vary from personage to personage.

There is only one objectively correct ethical code.

Those who subscribe to an ethical code that contradicts the objectively correct one are wrong and evil.

Yes, terrorists should be executed. Let's start with Bush, Cheney, Patreaus, and Rice. :)

I say kill 'em all, but I just finished playing some Warhammer 40,000 and listening to death metal.



We could be best friends...

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.
So no, terrorists should not be executed.

I find it funny people against the death penalty think life in prison is so much better. I'd choose death.

Sure it is. Just like lying is. Kant said it would be ethically wrong to lie, even to deceive a murderer. However, lying is often very logical. Since I endorse Machiavelli heartily, and Cesare Borgia is my paragon of a ruler, ethics don't figure into my thinking. Only logic.
Do you only mate once every 7 years too? :P
There is only one objectively correct ethical code.

Those who subscribe to an ethical code that contradicts the objectively correct one are wrong and evil.

See, now I know you're just a troll.

There is only one objectively correct ethical code.

Those who subscribe to an ethical code that contradicts the objectively correct one are wrong and evil.

I disagree. Morals are mutable, and vary from person to person like a favorite colors.

Do you only mate once every 7 years too? :P


I have yet to indulge in such things. It would be illogical until I intended to raise a child. Indeed, you must see that I am exceedingly logical. I can even decline the punfar.

No.

No death penalty ever. Not as long as the danger of executing innocents are present.

I find it funny people against the death penalty think life in prison is so much better. I'd choose death.

Another reason to not have the death penalty, isn't it? Why give you the easy way out, the one you'd rather have?

I have yet to indulge in such things. It would be illogical until I intended to raise a child. Indeed, you must see that I am exceedingly logical. I can even decline the punfar.

Spock approves.

Terrorists are one of the last people, if at all, to think about the consequences of their actions. The death penalty will have zero deterrent against terrorism.

They should not be executed, especially if they happen to be religious radicals, seeking to make martyrs of themselves. The irony of the contrast between their desires (specifically, to die), and reality there makes keeping them alive as long as possible even sweeter.
Exactly!!

No, it's not.

Something is only cruel if it's undeserved.

Well, aside from your definition being wrong, I don't believe it is ever justifiable, which was my point.

Erm, that should hjave said "EXTREMELY guilty" or something -- basically the ones where they're convictable not beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond nearly any doubt (such as Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald in front of a dozen people).

Nah, still wrong. Guilt is binary.

Terorrists should be locked up in jail! they cause destruction over the nations and should not walk free. nor do i sudgest that they must be executed; they are people too and they deserve their rights. despute that i do think that the teroristic person who was beyond normal acts should be neutralized emmidiatly :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: ;)

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.
So no, terrorists should not be executed.

In the given history of the world I think you could probably count the number of countries that have never had the death penalty so that would make most of the world barbarian.

I fully support it so I'll take your barbarian reference although it doesn't do anything for me negatively or positively. Terrorist, drug smuggler, go for it, convict them fairly, put them in jail, and end it. Be done with them.

In the given history of the world I think you could probably count the number of countries that have never had the death penalty so that would make most of the world barbarian.

How is that an argument? "Everybody has done it, so what is the big deal?" That is just as retarded as the style of thinking that leads us here. "They killed someone! How could they take someone's rights like that? We must kill them!"

How is that an argument? "Everybody has done it, so what is the big deal?" That is just as retarded as the style of thinking that leads us here. "They killed someone! How could they take someone's rights like that? We must kill them!"

It's as ridiculous as putting the barbarian tag on everyone that supports capital punishment. Supporting it or not is not barbaric and neither is it weak to not support it. It's a ludicrous idea that you are barbaric just because you support capital punishment for people like murderers, child rapists, rapists, and those who participate in the killing of countless numbers of people just because that is what you believe yourself.

It's as ridiculous as putting the barbarian tag on everyone that supports capital punishment. Supporting it or not is not barbaric and neither is it weak to not support it. It's a ludicrous idea that you are barbaric just because you support capital punishment for people like murderers, child rapists, rapists, and those who participate in the killing of countless numbers of people just because that is what you believe yourself.

I didn't mention the word barbaric, and I don't believe everyone who supports or opposes it is necessarily either, but just for the sake of boredom...

Supporting it or not is not barbaric
Barbarous: Savage in infliction of cruelty, cruelly harsh.

While standing by what I said above, that definition does kind of point towards death penalty supporters as being barbaric in contrast to those who oppose it, but whatever.

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.
So no, terrorists should not be executed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
@ Pacificville

no it wasn't intended towards you it was towards this post above

^^^^^^^^^^^^
@ Pacificville

no it wasn't intended towards you it was towards this post above

You were replying to my post though. But would you like to argue with my last post? I think I made a good point...

You were replying to my post though. But would you like to argue with my last post? I think I made a good point...

LOL only because you replied to mine but it would take some disagreement to argue and I agree with what you said. My intention was to use a further completely absurd statement to draw attention to the absurdity of the original statement.

When I look at capital punishment and my support for it, I don't use the cop-out of "Well they took someone's rights away we should take theirs," as it is too vague and just too general. I look at it as a sense of justice, perhaps a very traditional sense. I am for the punishment equalling the crime within reason. Obviously, taking a bank robber and sticking a needle in their arm is unnecessary. However, someone to takes a seven or eight year old child, rapes and beats them, and then horrifically kills them has taken a lot more away than just simple rights. They've committed an act so horrific and so dispicable that they should see some level of equal suffering. Sure they're at the mercy of inmates in jail and we know how much they hate rapists, let along child molsters and likely they'll get beaten far worse by the inmates but it should be the duty of the judicial body to derive appropriate and due punishment. I am not against making these vile scum suffer so much that they beg for death. What humanity have they to do such atrocious acts as these? Sadly so too must those passing down sentence trade away parts of theirs. As Machiavelli stated in The Prince, the Prince must be ready to do "wrong" and barbaric acts to protect the masses but never should they be done one iota longer than absolutely necessary.

-snip-

Why is this even an issue? If this guy doesn't hang then I am an Oscar Meyer wiener.

No.



Another reason to not have the death penalty, isn't it? Why give you the easy way out, the one you'd rather have?


Actually I think you're point is ridiculous. One of the main reasons people bitch about abolishing the death penalty is that life in prison wastes money. I say, anyone with a life sentence should have an option for voluntary suicide.

In the given history of the world I think you could probably count the number of countries that have never had the death penalty so that would make most of the world barbarian.

I fully support it so I'll take your barbarian reference although it doesn't do anything for me negatively or positively. Terrorist, drug smuggler, go for it, convict them fairly, put them in jail, and end it. Be done with them.

Prisons are not humane

Prisons are not humane

Prisons are not humane

What is wrong with all of your minds to think that life spent in a prison is better than death?

Why execute them? Most of them do it themselves!

Not only should terrorists be executed, they should die painfully, violently and in the most humiliating and public manner possible. No public statements, no claims of martyrdom, just a dog's death. Maybe something like this:

"the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." Bukhari Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas ( http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/082.htm )

Prisons are not humane

Prisons are not humane

Prisons are not humane

What is wrong with all of your minds to think that life spent in a prison is better than death?

Indeed that is correct they are not humane places and yes it is cheaper to keep them alive and die in jail than execute them, I know that fact well. It rests more on a sort of tit-for-tat issue but I disagree that life in itself, even a prison life, is something that they deprived others and what they committed should be done to them and worse. Perhaps if they were put in jail, not fed, not given medical care, and allowed to be beaten, that would be something slightly more appealing.

LOL only because you replied to mine but it would take some disagreement to argue and I agree with what you said. My intention was to use a further completely absurd statement to draw attention to the absurdity of the original statement.

When I look at capital punishment and my support for it, I don't use the cop-out of "Well they took someone's rights away we should take theirs," as it is too vague and just too general. I look at it as a sense of justice, perhaps a very traditional sense. I am for the punishment equalling the crime within reason. Obviously, taking a bank robber and sticking a needle in their arm is unnecessary. However, someone to takes a seven or eight year old child, rapes and beats them, and then horrifically kills them has taken a lot more away than just simple rights. They've committed an act so horrific and so dispicable that they should see some level of equal suffering. Sure they're at the mercy of inmates in jail and we know how much they hate rapists, let along child molsters and likely they'll get beaten far worse by the inmates but it should be the duty of the judicial body to derive appropriate and due punishment. I am not against making these vile scum suffer so much that they beg for death. What humanity have they to do such atrocious acts as these? Sadly so too must those passing down sentence trade away parts of theirs. As Machiavelli stated in The Prince, the Prince must be ready to do "wrong" and barbaric acts to protect the masses but never should they be done one iota longer than absolutely necessary.

Why but? That sounds too much like the "they killed people let's kill them" but slightly rephrased. There has to be a punishment for a crime, but why do we choose to kill instead of locking them up for the rest of their life? Seems slightly sadistic to me.

Actually I think you're point is ridiculous. One of the main reasons people bitch about abolishing the death penalty is that life in prison wastes money. I say, anyone with a life sentence should have an option for voluntary suicide.

"Your", not "you are".

Anyway, I think it's an OK point - though by no means a decisive one.

The question of cost does not bother me. I'm willing to invest in my safety and the safety of the society.

And what good would come of the option of voluntary suicide? You think it would remove the blood from the hands of the authorities? Or that it would weaken possible claims to martyrdom and the likes?

I think they should be, only because a life sentence is usually only, like, 12 years.

And what good would come of the option of voluntary suicide? You think it would remove the blood from the hands of the authorities? Or that it would weaken possible claims to martyrdom and the likes?

It would do both, as the state is not engaging in the killing of someone. The other is just an assumption but I'm don't if you can be a martyr if you kill yourself.

Also, voluntary suicide? When is suicide not voluntary?

I think they should be, only because a life sentence is usually only, like, 12 years.

Where?

It would do both, as the state is not engaging in the killing of someone. The other is just an assumption but I'm don't if you can be a martyr if you kill yourself.

Also, voluntary suicide? When is suicide not voluntary?

When the state allows an inmate in their care to kill themselves, and maybe even provides the tools to use, I don't know how far the poster above wants to go, then the state does indeed have blood on their hands. Blood which might be innocent. Hence my stance on the issue.

And yes, some believe that you can be a martyr if you kill yourself. See suicide bombers for a current example. (And if you are allowed to kill yourself while being imprisoned, I have no doubt that you would be called a martyr for the cause.)

As for the voluntary, I took it to mean that you may commit suicide without the interference of the state, which you'll find in any regular prison today. (They do what they can to keep the prisoners alive...)

Where?

Most of the world.

Most of the world.

So you mean that they die in prison after 12 years then, or what?

Because after looking through the listing on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment), 12 years does not seem to be enough to describe "most of the world".

Of course, you may provide evidence to the contrary.

Not only should terrorists be executed, they should die painfully, violently and in the most humiliating and public manner possible. No public statements, no claims of martyrdom, just a dog's death. Maybe something like this:

"the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." Bukhari Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas ( http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/082.htm )
Number one, you are assuming that ALL terrorists are Muslims?

Number two, you wish to embrace their religion by practicing what they preach?

Capital punishment cost a lot of money here in the US. I don't want my taxes spend to put up a lie on how it can be humanistic to kill someone. I suggest we put a bullet into their head, harvest their organs, and throw the remains in an incinerator (I believe this is what China does right now). Since they are bought to the firing squad in this case and not some fancy money wasting way of killing, the only thing left is to harvest their organs afterward so the execution pays itself off.

In regard to cruelty, a quick death is less cruel than isolation prison for life. A bullet in the head = death in less than 3 seconds, while lethal injection/electric chairs have shown to fail and cause far more pain than a bullet in the head. Personally I much rather take the bullet over the other 2 anytime.

Some might argue injustice, but fact remains that capital punishment is legal and are widely practice today. Switching the method of killing isn't going to cause more injustice.

Also consider the fact that harvesting their organs can save many innocent lives.

As far as double-standard goes, keep in mind that life sentence is more cruel than a bullet in the head. Many surveys conducted in prison suggest that most criminal would prefer capital punishment over a life sentence. Why the unnecessary cruelty of locking them up? The victims family wants them dead, the terrorist themselves wants to die, the court in a fair trial sentence them to death. The only people who are against this are those liberals protectors who isn't even involve in the situation. Why do the liberals always try to force their self righteousness toward everything?

So I have to say yes in regard to executing terrorist,.

only if heads of state who secretly or openly use 'terrorist' tacktics are subject to the same treatment, and so called 'terrorsist' are granted and protected the right of habius corpus.

even then, on general principals i have a problem with the irriversability of the death penalty. and for anyone who REALLY deserves it, it is over with much too quickly.

no really, the main reason to do anything to anyone who has committed some offence, the only thing meaningful that surves some usefull purpose, is to deny them the opportunity of repeating their offence.

vengence is without honor.

but when a head of state has committed atrocities in the name of supposedly opposing them, but really to promote economic intrests and his own political advantage, then it is not my responsibility to interfere with the fulfilment of his own kharma.

(and what IS a terrorist, but someone who has themselves been wronged, often grevously, and seeking vengence without reguard to their own fate?)

=^^=
.../\...

Capital punishment cost a lot of money here in the US. I don't want my taxes spend to put up a lie on how it can be humanistic to kill someone. I suggest we put a bullet into their head, harvest their organs, and throw the remains in an incinerator (I believe this is what China does right now).

Except China's hideous corruption levels (including the judiciary) and and harsh laws means the death penalty is used very liberally.

On the plus side, they execute politicians whom they catch partaking in the corruption (who in most countries get away with it), but only when there's a big enough public and media gripe about it unfortunately.

no, I'm against death penalty in all instances.

(and what IS a terrorist, but someone who has themselves been wronged, often grevously, and seeking vengence without reguard to their own fate?)

=^^=
.../\...

A terrorist? Hard to say these days. But a lot of terrorists don't do it for vengeance or were wronged to begin with. Some do it because they have a cause, nevermind how wrongheaded it is. Cults like the Aum Shinrikyo, nutjobs like ALF and HSAC, religious nuts like David Koresh and his Waco siege or Bin Laden and his involvement with Al Qaeda.

None of them were really wronged, but took it up in their heads to commit crimes for their cause.

Just to interrupt the discussion, I would like point out that more than three times as many atheists and agnostics (23) are against the death penalty than those for it (7). Meanwhile the opposite is true for theists and gnostics with 5 for and 1 against. Obviously this an extremely unscientific poll with pitifully little data, but it is an interesting distinction to make, even if once more people vote it will probably fuck up any sort of point I may be trying to make.

Please continue...

I can understand the desire of someone who has had his child killed by terrorists to take revenge and kill that same terrorist. Of course, I do not condone that, but I understand it.

But I cannot comprehend how people who have an IQ higher than -- say -- 80 can possibly dare claim that something so abstract -- indeed whose mere existence is hardly justifyable -- as "a state" could imagine that it has the right to do what it explicitly forbids all those who are located on a territory that state claims as its own to do.

It is just idiotic. Either murder is impermissible, and the state has the right to punish murderers -- of course NOT by murdering them -- or it is OK to murder, and that applies to everybody: your neighbour, your angry boss, whacko shooters at malls AND the state.

It is as simple as that. All attempst at obfuscating the issue with the so-called political theories of social contract and other garbage are pathetic and hideously inadequate.

Either murder is impermissible, and the state has the right to punish murderers -- of course NOT by murdering them -- or it is OK to murder, and that applies to everybody: your neighbour, your angry boss, whacko shooters at malls AND the state.

The distinction is that murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Now if you had said killing is impermissible, and the state has a right to punish killers, but not by killing them, it would be a different story.

However, it would mean dropping the term murder.

But I cannot comprehend how people who have an IQ higher than -- say -- 80 can possibly dare claim that something so abstract -- indeed whose mere existence is hardly justifyable -- as "a state" could imagine that it has the right to do what it explicitly forbids all those who are located on a territory that state claims as its own to do.


If I understand that rambling right, you thus mean that all non-anarchists are stupid? :D

The only people who are against this are those liberals protectors who isn't even involve in the situation. Why do the liberals always try to force their self righteousness toward everything?

*snip*

And thus you made your comment completely irrelevant, at least to me. http://kthxbye.com/

The distinction is that murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Now if you had said killing is impermissible, and the state has a right to punish killers, but not by killing them, it would be a different story.

However, it would mean dropping the term murder.

Killing is murder. And vice versa. Look it up any etymologycal dictionary.


If I understand that rambling right, you thus mean that all non-anarchists are stupid? :D

If you understood anything at all to any degree (let alone "right"), you would not call the text you fail to comprehend "that rambling" or bring in "non-anarchists" (or anarchists, for that matter) totally off the wall.

Indeed anarchy is much more in direct connexion with advocating murder (of criminals or anyone) than with abstaining from advocating the said attrocity.

If you understood anything at all to any degree (let alone "right"), you would not call the text you fail to comprehend "that rambling" or bring in "non-anarchists" (or anarchists, for that matter) totally off the wall.

Indeed anarchy is much more in direct connexion with advocating murder (of criminals or anyone) than with abstaining from advocating the said attrocity.

If I understand that right, I didn´t understand the other thing right, right? :D

Killing is murder. And vice versa. Look it up any etymologycal dictionary.

You are referring to murder as a term applied by government and law. That means the legal interpretation of murder, which is the unlawful killing of another human being.

So you mean that they die in prison after 12 years then, or what?

Because after looking through the listing on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment), 12 years does not seem to be enough to describe "most of the world".

Of course, you may provide evidence to the contrary.

Heh.

Austria - 15 years
B&H - 10 years
Denmark - 12 years
Finland - 12
Germany - 15

I was pretty close. In addition, Indonesia, the nation in question, has a life sentence length of FIVE YEARS. Five fucking years. That's atrocious. If it were up to me, a life sentence would be for life, with potential (but unlikely) parole once 65 years have been served.

Killing is murder. And vice versa. Look it up any etymologycal dictionary.No it's not. Killing also includes manslaughter, negligent homicide, and whatnot.

Killing is murder. And vice versa. Look it up any etymologycal dictionary.


So, 'Meat is Murder' right?

SNIP...Australia's PM John Howard has been hypocritical in his opposition to it. He claims to be against the death penalty and is happy to try and get heroin smugglers off death row but not terrorists. That doesn't sound as bad out loud but it is a blatant double-standard.

So, thoughts?

No double standard here. There is a hell of a difference between a "heroin smuggler" and a terrorist who murders innocent people. Time for a reality ceck on your part.

Should terrorists be executed?

Only if there's nothing better on TV.

I'm torn. On one hand I believe their crime must be punished with death, but on the other hand I don't want to make martyr's out of them.

This is all mankind's fault.

Killing is murder. And vice versa. Look it up any etymologycal dictionary.

So killing in self-defense is murder, then?

Heh.

Austria - 15 years
B&H - 10 years
Denmark - 12 years
Finland - 12
Germany - 15

I was pretty close. In addition, Indonesia, the nation in question, has a life sentence length of FIVE YEARS. Five fucking years. That's atrocious. If it were up to me, a life sentence would be for life, with potential (but unlikely) parole once 65 years have been served.

Close? To your original statement?
I think they should be, only because a life sentence is usually only, like, 12 years.
Let's see...

South Africa - Lifetime, no provision for eventual release.
Tanzania - Lifetime, no provision for eventual release.
Some states in the US - Lifetime, no provision for eventual release.

Estonia - Life imprisonment means imprisonment until death.

Ireland - A life sentence in Ireland lasts for life.

The Netherlands: Life imprisonment has almost always meant exactly that: the prisoner will serve their term in prison until they die.

Poland: The prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment must serve at least 25 years in order to be eligible for parole.

Russia - After 25 years, a criminal sentenced to life imprisonment may apply to a court for "conditional early relief".

Italy - After 26 (or 21 in case of good behavior) years, she or he may be paroled.

Sweden - Today (2007) the usual time is at least 20-22 years.

Denmark - Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment serve an average of 16 years, more for cases considered to be particularly grave. (Not 12)

Greece - A "life term" lasts for 25 years, and one can apply for parole in 16 years.

Austria - After 15 years parole is possible if and when it can be assumed that the inmate will not re-offend.

Germany - The minimum time to be served for a sentence of life imprisonment is 15 years.

England - The average sentence is about 15 years before the first parole hearing.

Bosnia - no prisoner serves more than 10 to 20 years; most of them are pardoned for good behavior as violence in Bosnian jails is almost non-existent.

Norway: Only a small percentage serve more than 14 years.

Finland - After a life prisoner has been serving his or her sentence for 12 years, he/she will be considered for parole.


Portugal - Life imprisonment is limited to a maximum of 25 years, but the vast majority of long-term sentences never exceed 20 years served.


And that's just the European countries - I can't be bothered to go through the rest. But no, mate, you're not "close". Not at all. 12 years does not seem to be the norm when it comes to general served time of the life sentence.

And you read about Indonesia wrong. It says "At least" 5 years imprisonment, and also it says that it "generally ranges from 10 to 20 years." That makes a difference.

No double standard here. There is a hell of a difference between a "heroin smuggler" and a terrorist who murders innocent people. Time for a reality ceck on your part.

No. It is clearly a double-standard. Person A opposes death penalty ideologically. Person A calls for the abolishment of the death penalty and for people from their country on death row overseas to have their sentence commuted. Person A is happy to see Person B executed.

The crimes doesn't matter, it is the clearest possible example you could see of a double-standard and of hypocrisy.

I'm torn. On one hand I believe their crime must be punished with death, but on the other hand I don't want to make martyr's out of them.

This is all mankind's fault.

I agree! I'd say that mankind should be taken out the back and given a lethal injection, but I don't want to make a martyr of him. :p

Heh.

Austria - 15 years
B&H - 10 years
Denmark - 12 years
Finland - 12
Germany - 15

I was pretty close. In addition, Indonesia, the nation in question, has a life sentence length of FIVE YEARS. Five fucking years. That's atrocious. If it were up to me, a life sentence would be for life, with potential (but unlikely) parole once 65 years have been served.

You're twisting the facts.

As already pointed out, you are completely wrong. In Indonesia the minimum life sentence is five years and usually from 10-20 years, but that isn't to say that somebody who commits a heinous crime will not be in jail for longer.

The same goes for your Finland claim; 12 years is the minimum (10 years for people under 21) and parole can then be granted by either the President of Finland or the Helsinki Court of Appeal. There is nothing to stop a terrorist from being denied parole repeatedly.

B&H is not 10 but 10-20 usually, but again if there was to be a terrorist who the state seriously thought was likely to re-offend they can keep them in jail for 40 years.

Same deal in Austria where parole is available after 15 years but can be extended for the prisoner's entire life. Again same thing in Denmark with parole after 12 but longer for worse crimes. It is 15 years until parole for Germany but again doesn't mean the prisoner will get it, with "around 20% of all people serving life imprisonment stay in prison until their natural death".

Nice try there to make it seem like you're right, but you're ignoring the fact that just because parole is available doesn't mean the prisoner will get it- especially when we're talking about a terrorist here. You should have admitted you were wrong instead of being so dishonest.

So killing in self-defense is murder, then?

Even though from a so-called jurisprudential point of view it may be permitted, from a moral point of view: of course it is one and the same, be it in self-defence, defence of an airplane full of children against a would-be murdersome 70-year old or whatnot. Murder is murder, and act of killing people.


No it's not. Killing also includes manslaughter, negligent homicide, and whatnot.

you are wrong. These words all mean the same: murder, i.e. taking an active part in ending another person's life that would have otherwise ran its natural course for a longer time than had you not intervened.

The fact that they are punished with different penalties in most countries cannot obfuscate the fact that they are all the same in essence.

Besides "homicide" means exactly that: "murder of a man" in neo-Latin of the Western judicial systems, and "manslaughter" means "murder of a man" made up of old-Germanic roots.

I disagree. Morals are mutable, and vary from person to person like a favorite colors.

I don't doubt that each individual generally subscribes to a distinct moral code.

That doesn't mean that there is not only one objectively correct moral code.

All it means is that those who subscribe to a moral code different than the objectively correct one are wrong.

I don't doubt that each individual generally subscribes to a distinct moral code.

That doesn't mean that there is not only one objectively correct moral code.

All it means is that those who subscribe to a moral code different than the objectively correct one are wrong.

We just happened to evolve to our current state with our current sensibilities- how exactly can there possibly be an objective moral code?

We just happened to evolve to our current state with our current sensibilities- how exactly can there possibly be an objective moral code?

The word people are looking for is intersubjective.

We have an intersubjective understanding of morals and law. Only statistical outliers (and so dismissible) think murder and rape are acceptable. Everybody else would agree that we ought not be allowed to murder or rape.

This does not mean there is an objective truth about it, just that humans have agreed intersubjectively that murder and rape are bad things and ought not be done.

Why but? That sounds too much like the "they killed people let's kill them" but slightly rephrased. There has to be a punishment for a crime, but why do we choose to kill instead of locking them up for the rest of their life? Seems slightly sadistic to me.

Simple justice--getting what they deserve.

I don't doubt that each individual generally subscribes to a distinct moral code.

That doesn't mean that there is not only one objectively correct moral code.

All it means is that those who subscribe to a moral code different than the objectively correct one are wrong.

Why are you so damn certain your morals are the correct ones?

You see, morally speaking, you're a universalist, and I'm a relativist. These are two irreconcilable philosophies. Ergo, the point is moot.

In my point of view, certain morals function better for certain people. For an absolute I choose logic. Whatever benefits the human race in the long run. I will give my life to save a prodigy, but I will won't shed a tear for the execution of a terrorist, or similar detrimental member of society.

The word people are looking for is intersubjective.

We have an intersubjective understanding of morals and law. Only statistical outliers (and so dismissible) think murder and rape are acceptable. Everybody else would agree that we ought not be allowed to murder or rape.

This does not mean there is an objective truth about it,

That is correct.

It is an objective truth for an entirely different reason.

It is an objective truth, intrinsic to the Universe, nonetheless.

Why are you so damn certain your morals are the correct ones?


Their being correct is prior to my having accepted them.

Years ago, I evaluated a multitude of moral codes, until I came across one that lacked both false premises and faulty logic.

Simple justice--getting what they deserve.

ah, so killing someone means you deserve death....sure puts those executioners in a shitty spot, huh?

Simple justice--getting what they deserve.

In your opinion, but when there are differing schools of thought on such an important matter why would you choose the one involving more death?

That is correct.

It is an objective truth for an entirely different reason.

It is an objective truth, intrinsic to the Universe, nonetheless.

That is incorrect. There is constant rape and murder among animals. Then humans come along and have the gall to say: "universal omnipotent morals that we created are the right ones!"

Humans created morals. It is ridiculous to think there is a UNIVERSAL moral code. But one has to be truly vacuous to assume whatever it is, their personal morals match it exactly. That's like saying English is the universal language, and all others stink.

Murderers and rapists should be put to death for the betterment of society, but not to serve some absurd "universal morals".

That is correct.

It is an objective truth for an entirely different reason.

It is an objective truth, intrinsic to the Universe, nonetheless.

Wait, you're still claiming there is an objectively good and correct moral code? How? How did you come to this conclusion. I'd like to see you prove this, because if you do, I will literally eat my hat. I will film it, put it on youtube, and send you a link.

Their being correct is prior to my having accepted them.

Years ago, I evaluated a multitude of moral codes, until I came across one that lacked both false premises and faulty logic.

Prove they're correct.

I came across one that lacked both false premises and faulty logic.

Then it is logic...if it has the betterment of humankind in view. If it's trying to "right wrongs" then it's just silly.

Example: it is logical to torture terrorists for information.

Example: not matter how bad someone's crime is, it is illogical to torture them to exact "justice".

I would only support the death penalty if the justice system were perfect. It is not, and it will never be because humans are not perfect. That effectively makes me against capital punishment.

I am a theist.

ah, so killing someone means you deserve death....sure puts those executioners in a shitty spot, huh?

Don't build ridiculous strawmen.

Killing someone doesn't deserve death.

An unjustified killing of a human being means you deserve death

Executing terrorists, murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals, trespassers, burglars, muggers, etc. fails on both those counts (it's not unjustified, and what is being killed is not a human being, although it may have been at one point).

That is incorrect. There is constant rape and murder among animals.
Non-human animals are not moral agents.


Humans created morals.
Incorrect. The correct moral code has existed since the beginning of time; humans merely discovered it several billion years later.

It is ridiculous to think there is a UNIVERSAL moral code.
Why is it ridiculous to accept that which is true?
But one has to be truly vacuous to assume whatever it is, their personal morals match it exactly.
Exactly. Which is why I assume nothing.


Murderers and rapists should be put to death for the betterment of society, but not to serve some absurd "universal morals".

Incorrect. They should be put to death because it is what they deserve. "Society" is irrelevant.

Then it is logic...if it has the betterment of humankind in view. If it's trying to "right wrongs" then it's just silly.
Why? Justice is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.

Example: not matter how bad someone's crime is, it is illogical to torture them to exact "justice".

Why?

Linus and Lucy, you keep going on about this absolute, objective moral code but you are yet to give any evidence or reasoning for its existence. I repeat my offer that if you actually manage to do this I will literally eat my hat.

still unable to prove any of these stupid comments of yours?

No one would commit a crime if he thought that he might be killed for it. I for one belive that the death penelty is an excellent deterant. Especially for suicide bombers.

*snip*

Should terrorists be executed?

Yes and no.

In your opinion, but when there are differing schools of thought on such an important matter why would you choose the one involving more death?

Because it's the only correct one.

Why? Justice is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.It can be argued that such a purely retributive form of "justice" is in itself unjust.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.


And, as been noted before, just because some dead russian bitch said it, doesn't make it true.

So, basically...you can't prove a single thing you say and you're just full of shit. OK, gotcha.

Linus and Lucy, you keep going on about this absolute, objective moral code but you are yet to give any evidence or reasoning for its existence. I repeat my offer that if you actually manage to do this I will literally eat my hat.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

There is no need to restate what others have already said when it is without error. A simple reference is unnecessary. I have better things to do with my time than save you a trip to the library.

"Your", not "you are".

Anyway, I think it's an OK point - though by no means a decisive one.

The question of cost does not bother me. I'm willing to invest in my safety and the safety of the society.

And what good would come of the option of voluntary suicide? You think it would remove the blood from the hands of the authorities? Or that it would weaken possible claims to martyrdom and the likes?

I think every human has an inalieable right to kill themselves, and if someone detests their existence that much, even if they are a criminal, they should always have the right to die.

Non-human animals are not moral agents.

So all their actions are fine because they're not as intelligent? Are murdering retards then allowed to go free under your system? Why should morality only be relevant to humans?

Incorrect. The correct moral code has existed since the beginning of time; humans merely discovered it several billion years later.

I see. But if humans never evolved, then morals wouldn't be in effect. Lighting still struck before Ben discovered electricity. You're saying the same of morals. Impossible. morals did not effect anything before humans came to be, ergo they didn't exist.

Why is it ridiculous to accept that which is true?

For truth there must be proof. It is ridiculous to accept something, and then call it "truth" when there is no proof.

Exactly. Which is why I assume nothing.

You believe something is so, and therefor it is true? Is it impossible for you to be wrong? How powerful that vanity of yours is.

Incorrect. They should be put to death because it is what they deserve. "Society" is irrelevant.

Preposterous. How do you know whether-or-not they "deserve" death? You're not God.

It can be argued that such a purely retributive form of "justice" is in itself unjust.

And such an argument would be wrong.

And such an argument would be wrong.
And such an absolute and unqualified statement is silly. Please back up your assertions. Do not assume that your outlandish and so far unarticulated assertion of a single and absolute definition of justice that incorporates killing disarmed and potentially innocent people is self-evident. You seem to be using the word 'reason' as a protective totem without ever demonstrating much of it to us.

In other words:
Please explain.

So all their actions are fine because they're not as intelligent?
Their actions aren't "fine"--they're outside the realm of morality altogether.

Why should morality only be relevant to humans?
Because only humans are capable of comprehending the concept.

I see. But if humans never evolved, then morals wouldn't be in effect. Lighting still struck before Ben discovered electricity. You're saying the same of morals. Impossible. morals did not effect anything before humans came to be, ergo they didn't exist.
That is a non-sequitur.

For truth there must be proof. It is ridiculous to accept something, and then call it "truth" when there is no proof.

Have I ever claimed otherwise?


You believe something is so, and therefor it is true?
Except that's not what I'm saying. Please stop insisting on this ridiculous strawman. It makes your already-weak position even weaker.

Is it impossible for you to be wrong?
No--but I'm not wrong in this case, because reason proves me correct.


How do you know whether-or-not they "deserve" death?

Because it follows logically from the first principles of the Universe.

I never claimed otherwise.

OK then, so why should I give a fuck about what Ayn Rand had to say?

And, as been noted before, just because some dead russian bitch said it, doesn't make it true.

I never claimed otherwise.

No--but I'm not wrong in this case

prove it

Because it follows logically from the first principles of the Universe.

Prove them

And I already told you that you in fact did not.:rolleyes:

I already told you where you can find the proof.

no no, you have been challenged to back up your assertions. Why should we believe your opinion is in any way valid, or you are even in the least bit intelligent, if you can't even articulate your own position?

If you lack the intellect to propertly demonstrate your position, you expect us to believe it's a correct one?

Because she was right.
Then why was she wrong?:rolleyes:

In other words:
Please explain.

I already told you where you can find the proof.

I already told you where you can find the proof.

Why are you even bothering to join the discussion if all you are prepared to do is make wild claims and then refuse to give us direct evidence, and just tell us to go read some books? It is fine to tell us where your position comes from and what to read if we want to know more but what is the point in arguing if you refuse to even be drawn on this evidence which you referring to? I don't make posts complaining about the military budget without mentioning any figures or giving sources and context.

OK then, so why should I give a fuck about what Ayn Rand had to say?

Because she was right.

Why? Justice is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.

May I ask why?

Why?

Because it's a pointless expenditure of time, and does not benefit society anymore then simple execution. It may serve as a determent, but I doubt it would be a more effective one then death,

Because it follows logically from the first principles of the Universe. Please prove that the universe has first principles.

prove it



Prove them

I already told you where to look. Get off your ass and to the library.

May I ask why?

I have already mentioned where the proof of this proposition can be found.


Because it's a pointless expenditure of time,
No, it's not; it serves the purpose of justice.

and does not benefit society anymore then simple execution.

That is not a relevant metric.

Because she was right.

prove it.

I already told you where to look.

and I told you to prove it. Not to use osmeone else's intellect above yours. You were challenged to back up your assertions. Are you incapable of such?

Then why should I give a damn about your arguments, if you lack the most basic ability to defend your own positions?

I have already mentioned where the proof of this proposition can be found.



No, it's not; it serves the purpose of justice.



That is not a relevant metric.

Very well. I will concede if you can do the following: explain why we must bend over backwards to keep serving this divinity for it's own sake. This being you call "Justice" that gets so peeved if the blood of the detrimentals aren't sacrificed to it.

Why is it a "metric relevant", and society's welfare not?

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.


You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the long-dead 16th-century Florentine philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the long-dead 16th-century Florentine philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli.

Is that a subtle insult towards Mach?

Terrorists should be humiliated then excecuted. Take muslims for example.We should cut off their arms and legs and sew a pig's arms and legs to their bodies and perhaps other parts of the pig stuffed into their mouth. They won't get into paradise, assuming it exists (hint:It doesn't.) It will also send a message to other muslims who are thinking about becoming terrorists. And the almost sadistic inhumanity of such an act might even repel people who aren't religous terrorists. It's not like anyone would sympathize with a terrorist on this issue.

No, I wouldn't sympathize with any terrorist, but i wouldn't humiliate them in the way you suggested. To do such an act to a terrorist, in its self, is a terroristic act. Yes I understand, they are in a group that stands for a single destruction of a race or government, by striking fear into the hearts of citizens or people. on the other hand, if it is a terrorist group that doesn't believe in "blowing oneself up and taking others with them, but blows others up and they live", yes, under that circumstance(s) would I consider "Death row", only if we could directly link it with the organization.

I bet this idea is very circumstantial to, I bet no one in their right mind, who witnessed a terrorist attack first hand; got their faced marred by blood and sweat; who has witnessed death on a wide-scale basis; would not want to have the person(s), who were responsible, hung.

I live not that far from the sights of terrorist attacks, that lost me three-hundred and forty-three "brothers" (if you couldn't guess, I'm a Fire Fighter). Those peoples blood, as well as the three-thousand others, were spilled by a terrorist organization. Yes, I want to see the man/men who orchestrated the attacks to hang, yet, I think it would be best to give a fair trial first.

lets also analyze it in this way: Lets say Hitler was captured, would you have wanted him to be hung? most people,in which i have asked, would answer yes... Genocide to could also play a big role in this matter...(yes i consider Hitler to be a terrorist, he was the first modern one)

yet, I think it would be best to give a fair trial first.


Gee...ya think?

If you shall execute terrorists then execute all of them, and if you don't seek to execute some of them, execute none of them.

Many of you seem happy to torture a Muslim blinded by hate, but what of the other terrorists? Will you execute the drunken parents who beat their children? Will you execute the soldiers who rape and kill civilians? Will you seek to execute all those leaders that have brought misery and death to their people as well as to citizens of other countries? Will you execute thieves and bullies, because they certainly terrorize their victims? Will you execute all the terrorists?

Of course you won't, because obviously to many of you, a necessary condition to being a terrorist is to be a Muslim.

If you shall execute terrorists then execute all of them, and if you don't seek to execute some of them, execute none of them.

Um, why?

Many of you seem happy to torture a Muslim blinded by hate, but what of the other terrorists? Will you execute the drunken parents who beat their children? Will you execute the soldiers who rape and kill civilians? Will you seek to execute all those leaders that have brought misery and death to their people as well as to citizens of other countries? Will you execute thieves and bullies, because they certainly terrorize their victims? Will you execute all the terrorists?

Of course you won't, because obviously to many of you, a necessary condition to being a terrorist is to be a Muslim.

It's generally accepted that terrorism involves violence for political purposes...

Um, why?



It's generally accepted that terrorism involves violence for political purposes...

Because otherwise your a fucking hypocrite.

Indeed, so what about the leaders, and what about the soldiers.

Because otherwise your a fucking hypocrite.

Indeed, so what about the leaders, and what about the soldiers.

So you're saying that all murderers, for example, should receive exactly the same punishment, or it's hypocritical? All terrorists are exactly the same?

The aforementioned leaders and soldiers most definitely deserve the death penalty as an option. Having a mandatory death penalty for any crime (except possibly genocide?) doesn't work. But I don't have any objections to executing soldiers and their leaders for war crimes, and I don't see why anyone who supports the death penalty should think otherwise.

So you're saying that all murderers, for example, should receive exactly the same punishment, or it's hypocritical? All terrorists are exactly the same?

The aforementioned leaders and soldiers most definitely deserve the death penalty as an option. Having a mandatory death penalty for any crime (except possibly genocide?) doesn't work. But I don't have any objections to executing soldiers and their leaders for war crimes, and I don't see why anyone who supports the death penalty should think otherwise.

The problem with the death penalty as it is used now is that it is the worst of both possible worlds. If you commit a crime, even in the US, there is a very small chance you will get killed. Considering that terrorists are probably more willing to die than your average murderer anyway, the deterrent is almost zero. So, for it to be effective, capital punishment would have to be used much more frequently.
The only other argument for it I can think of is if these people were a grave threat while they were still alive. This seems to keep on happening in Spider-Man comics, where liberal prison policies let New York's super villains break out with alarming regularity. However, in the real world there are few terrorists that have six mechanical arms, or can control the weather. A locked up terrorist is no more dangerous than a dead one; killing them is unnecessary.

So you're saying that all murderers, for example, should receive exactly the same punishment, or it's hypocritical? All terrorists are exactly the same?

The aforementioned leaders and soldiers most definitely deserve the death penalty as an option. Having a mandatory death penalty for any crime (except possibly genocide?) doesn't work. But I don't have any objections to executing soldiers and their leaders for war crimes, and I don't see why anyone who supports the death penalty should think otherwise.

In my earlier point I was simply trying to show how many different meaning the word terrorist can have, as well as how bigoted some are.

As for murderers receiving the same punishment, aren't all murders guilty of the same crime, which is murder, so shouldn't they have similar punishments?

I agree with your second paragraph, but I personally do not support the death penalty.

Close? To your original statement?

Let's see...

snip

Minimum is all that matters to me, and in many cases, the minimum is disgustingly low.

The death penalty is only enacted and/or supported by barbarians.
So no, terrorists should not be executed.

That is completely asinine. The death penalty is NOT "barbaric", per se.

I support the death penalty for murderers; that way, people who would otherwise be murderers will be given a disincentive against killing another person if they know THEIR OWN life will end as a consequence thereof.

The problem with the death penalty as it is used now is that it is the worst of both possible worlds. If you commit a crime, even in the US, there is a very small chance you will get killed. Considering that terrorists are probably more willing to die than your average murderer anyway, the deterrent is almost zero. So, for it to be effective, capital punishment would have to be used much more frequently.
The only other argument for it I can think of is if these people were a grave threat while they were still alive. This seems to keep on happening in Spider-Man comics, where liberal prison policies let New York's super villains break out with alarming regularity. However, in the real world there are few terrorists that have six mechanical arms, or can control the weather. A locked up terrorist is no more dangerous than a dead one; killing them is unnecessary.

One could argue that letting them live is unnecessary too. However I've seen several convincing arguments here (shock) that regardless of whether one morally supports the death penalty or not it's a waste of time and money. Maybe if the system is streamlined it may become more viable, but in America as that's what everyone seems to be arguing from, the justice system is not the greatest in the world, and at the moment I don't agree with it there.

In my earlier point I was simply trying to show how many different meaning the word terrorist can have, as well as how bigoted some are.

As for murderers receiving the same punishment, aren't all murders guilty of the same crime, which is murder, so shouldn't they have similar punishments?

I agree with your second paragraph, but I personally do not support the death penalty.

It can have many different meanings, but frankly, a meaning that defines parents that beat their children as terrorists is a stupid one.

Are you implying that someone who, say, commits a crime of passion and kills their spouse for having an affair is deserving of the same punishment as the Hitlers and Stalins of this world?

If you shall execute terrorists then execute all of them, and if you don't seek to execute some of them, execute none of them.

Many of you seem happy to torture a Muslim blinded by hate, but what of the other terrorists? Will you execute the drunken parents who beat their children? Will you execute the soldiers who rape and kill civilians? Will you seek to execute all those leaders that have brought misery and death to their people as well as to citizens of other countries? Will you execute thieves and bullies, because they certainly terrorize their victims? Will you execute all the terrorists?

Of course you won't, because obviously to many of you, a necessary condition to being a terrorist is to be a Muslim.

It has nothing to do with being a Muslim. It has to do with killing/threatening to kill people and/or destroy, or attempt to destroy, nations over religious disagreements. Not all Muslims are terrorists, though obviously some are, such as Osama bin Laden.

One could argue that letting them live is unnecessary too. However I've seen several convincing arguments here (shock) that regardless of whether one morally supports the death penalty or not it's a waste of time and money. Maybe if the system is streamlined it may become more viable, but in America as that's what everyone seems to be arguing from, the justice system is not the greatest in the world, and at the moment I don't agree with it there.



It can have many different meanings, but frankly, a meaning that defines parents that beat their children as terrorists is a stupid one.

Are you implying that someone who, say, commits a crime of passion and kills their spouse for having an affair is deserving of the same punishment as the Hitlers and Stalins of this world?

Well don't aren't they terrorizing their children? Again, I'm only saying that it's a very hard to define word, and I rarely see it applied to any non-Muslim.

Murder, by definition is malicious and lacks justification. So I don't think someone killing their spouse would be defined as murder (though I'm not sure) but it would certainly be a crime. And Hitler and Stalin caused genocide, which is on a totally different level.

It has nothing to do with being a Muslim. It has to do with killing/threatening to kill people and/or destroy, or attempt to destroy, nations over religious disagreements. Not all Muslims are terrorists, though obviously some are, such as Osama bin Laden.

So your saying it has to be religious?

Well don't aren't they terrorizing their children? Again, I'm only saying that it's a very hard to define word, and I rarely see it applied to any non-Muslim.

Murder, by definition is malicious and lacks justification. So I don't think someone killing their spouse would be defined as murder (though I'm not sure) but it would certainly be a crime. And Hitler and Stalin caused genocide, which is on a totally different level.

what? I'm no lawyer, but that seems just a bit fishy to me.

The IRA aren't a terrorist group? Methinks you've been spending too much time around the 'lol all terrists are muslims' crowd.

If you don't like Hitler and Stalin, compare the scenario to a serial killer. Like, one of the really unpleasant ones. Do they deserve equal punishment?

what? I'm no lawyer, but that seems just a bit fishy to me.

The IRA aren't a terrorist group? Methinks you've been spending too much time around the 'lol all terrists are muslims' crowd.

If you don't like Hitler and Stalin, compare the scenario to a serial killer. Like, one of the really unpleasant ones. Do they deserve equal punishment?

Neither am I, but I think that's what the definition is.

I'm sorry, but I don't know who the IRA is? As for the "lol all terrorists are muslims", I don't hear it much off the internet(if ever), but on the internet I hear it much more, and I was mainly responding to some of the posters that were having orgasms over torturing muslims.

Again, it's a different case. A serial killer is guilty of multiple murders no? So their punishment would be different.

Is that a subtle insult towards Mach?

Not at all. I admire Machiavelli. However, I don't demand that people read Discourses (the book you should read), or concede the argument.

Of course they should. Slowly, excruciatingly, and, most importantly, amusingly.

Indeed, it could form the basis of a new reality TV show; "get your own back; Xtreme!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Murderers and rapists should be put to death for the betterment of society, but not to serve some absurd "universal morals".

Incorrect. They should be put to death because it is what they deserve. "Society" is irrelevant.


No one has the right to kill=murder another human being.

The fact that some people do it, even a thousand times -- and without having a right to do so, of course -- does not give the right to anyone else to kill=murder that person who has done it in the first place.

By killing a mass murderer, you become a murderer as well, and then -- according to your own logic -- others have the right to murder you, and someone them ad infinitum.

No one has the right to kill=murder another human being.

The fact that some people do it, even a thousand times -- and without having a right to do so, of course -- does not give the right to anyone else to kill=murder that person who has done it in the first place.

By killing a mass murderer, you become a murderer as well, and then -- according to your own logic -- others have the right to murder you, and someone them ad infinitum.

Incorrect. By logic some humans are worth more then others. Once a human is not only worth zero to society (which doesn't warrant killing), but actually worth a negative then it is time for termination.

Killing humans isn't wrong of itself (by logic). Killing productive humans and innocent humans who have done nothing wrong is (by logic; by ethics killing is wrong period).

It makes no-sense to use money to pen-up aberrant members of the group. It would far more sensible to kill them then attempt to turn them into productive members.

If they can produce enough to turn a profit for society while imprisoned, then they have a right to be jailed. If they produce less then they cost, well....

No one has the right to kill=murder another human being.


Why do you say that? It's just wrong? I hope you're not another Universalist. "It's wrong universally."

I think every human has an inalieable right to kill themselves, and if someone detests their existence that much, even if they are a criminal, they should always have the right to die.
Ah. So it's got nothing to do with criminals per se.

Minimum is all that matters to me, and in many cases, the minimum is disgustingly low.
...

Why? Do you think the people who only serve a minimum of prison time would have been executed if the country had the death penalty?

In Soviet Russia terrorists execute you! (this is actually true as well in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, etc.)

Incorrect. By logic some humans are worth more then others. Once a human is not only worth zero to society (which doesn't warrant killing), but actually worth a negative then it is time for termination.

Killing humans isn't wrong of itself (by logic). Killing productive humans and innocent humans who have done nothing wrong is (by logic; by ethics killing is wrong period).

It makes no-sense to use money to pen-up aberrant members of the group. It would far more sensible to kill them then attempt to turn them into productive members.

If they can produce enough to turn a profit for society while imprisoned, then they have a right to be jailed. If they produce less then they cost, well....


No humans are worth more than other humans.

For humans to murder humans is impermissible -- for whatever reason. Of course, some humans will still do it. It remains impermissible and the fact that someone broke the implicit ban does not mean you have the right to do the same. Reasons are multifold: biological, socio-political (may but does not have to include jurisprudence), philosophical/ethical (may but does not have to include religion) etc.

On the other hand for tigers to murder=kill humans to feed is not wrong. Or for sharks,crocodiles, what have you.

Oh, and BTW, logic is by no means an absolute category in any respect, it is just a loosely structured pass-time of little value beyond excercise for teens and entertainment for a few idle adults. Philosophy is something much more valuable to both the individual who engages in it and his surroundings, not to mention emotional actyivities devoid of logic.

As for "societies", you are not an elected spokesperson of societies, not even a loudspeaker to echo other people's opinions.

Besides, societies do not put people in gaols (in your simplifid spelling: "jails"). States do. And states and societies have very little in common. I explained this on another thread and won't be repeating myself here.

And the interests of the state are irrelevant for a human being.

No humans are worth more than other humans.

Here we disagree. Please state why a rapist is worth the same as an altruist who saves innocents.

For humans to murder humans is impermissible -- for whatever reason.

Why? Because "you say so"? I am quite bored with: "this is right because I say so, and all others are dunderheads for disagreeing" universal morals crap.

Of course, some humans will still do it. It remains impermissible and the fact that someone broke the implicit ban does not mean you have the right to do the same. Reasons are multifold: biological,

Biological? Killing is quite natural.

socio-political (may but does not have to include jurisprudence),

Please clarify.

philosophical/ethical (may but does not have to include religion) etc.

Philosophies and ethics differ from person to person. That's just tantamount to saying "it's against my philosophy/ethics, ergo it's wrong." Please, consider this.

On the other hand for tigers to murder=kill humans to feed is not wrong. Or for sharks,crocodiles, what have you.

Because it has the purpose of eating? Is cannibalism justified then? No? Humans are better then other species so it's immoral to eat them. Cows are better then plants, so I take it you are for mandatory vegetarianism.

Oh, and BTW, logic is by no means an absolute category in any respect, it is just a loosely structured pass-time of little value beyond excercise for teens and entertainment for a few idle adults. Philosophy is something much more valuable to both the individual who engages in it and his surroundings, not to mention emotional actyivities devoid of logic.

I apply logic to apparently illogical activities. I am currently working on a algebraic formula that could determine a spouse that I wouldn't divorce (and vice versa of course).
What is logic? It's natural. If you look at nature as a ruler, it's quite logical. It kills-off unwanted creatures through disease, it executes all beings eventually (death) when they no-longer serve a purpose. My sense of logic is a merely a more benign version of nature.

As for "societies", you are not an elected spokesperson of societies, not even a loudspeaker to echo other people's opinions.

I speak logic. I am not concerned with others opinions. You accuse me as if I'm usurping the government. If I thought I spoke for others opinions, then I wouldn't believed you disagreed with me, which you obviously do.

Besides, societies do not put people in gaols (in your simplifid spelling: "jails"). States do. And states and societies have very little in common. I explained this on another thread and won't be repeating myself here.


In a proper Democracy, it's the state's business to insure the well-being of society. That is it's one and only purpose.

And the interests of the state are irrelevant for a human being.

Once again I must correct you: the interests of the state, should in theory, be that of the whole society (at least in a democracy).

Here we disagree. Please state why a rapist is worth the same as an altruist who saves innocents.

Why? Because "you say so"? I am quite bored with: "this is right because I say so, and all others are dunderheads for disagreeing" universal morals crap.

Biological? Killing is quite natural.

Please clarify.

Philosophies and ethics differ from person to person. That's just tantamount to saying "it's against my philosophy/ethics, ergo it's wrong." Please, consider this.

Because it has the purpose of eating? Is cannibalism justified then? No? Humans are better then other species so it's immoral to eat them. Cows are better then plants, so I take it you are for mandatory vegetarianism.

I apply logic to apparently illogical activities. I am currently working on a algebraic formula that could determine a spouse that I wouldn't divorce (and vice versa of course).
What is logic? It's natural. If you look at nature as a ruler, it's quite logical. It kills-off unwanted creatures through disease, it executes all beings eventually (death) when they no-longer serve a purpose. My sense of logic is a merely a more benign version of nature.

I speak logic. I am not concerned with others opinions. You accuse me as if I'm usurping the government. If I thought I spoke for others opinions, then I wouldn't believed you disagreed with me, which you obviously do.

In a proper Democracy, it's the state's business to insure the well-being of society. That is it's one and only purpose.

Once again I must correct you: the interests of the state, should in theory, be that of the whole society (at least in a democracy).

1. A rapist is not "worth the same as an altruist", because people are not objects and therefore not "worth". People are equal in their inalienable human rights, including the right to life. Yes, a apist, indeed a mass murderer of a bus load od babies is equal to the greates artist, medical scientists etc.

2. This is not because I say so, but because these are facts. Therefore I honour your so-called questions with an answer, because as a human being you are equal to other humans, thus: you deserve to be illuminated when you fail. Personally, I do not need to do that. It's tiresome as you are rude, and your education is lacking. But I have done it twice. And I will probably stop.

3. Biological in my sentence means genetics. Biology is broader than genetics. I was being economical.

Now, everyone has genes, and genes have selfish interests. It is in your best interest for humanity to survive. Of course, those that share more of your genetic pool are those whom you cherish more. But even mass murderers like William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, now dead Yassir Arafat and Saddam Husein also have relatives who share their genetic pool.

In a society it is the best interest of everybody that no one is murdered by others or by the state. What you loose on scarce resources is complemented by what you get in preservation of humankind.

Also at the biological level, it is also good for your mental health/wellbeing for humans around you not to be killed. Indeed your desire to murder people (however attrocious deeds they may have done to you or others) sprouts from trauma you have experienced.

4. Philosophies most certainly do not "differ from person to person". Very few people delve into philosophy, let alone work seriously with it. Outlook on life is NOT philosophy. Ethics is more widespread, but it is also more standardised -- it certainly does not differ from person to person.

5. I never said anything of the kind of the silly sentence you falsified there by putting it under quotes "it's against my philosophy/ethics, ergo it's wrong", falsely suggesting that you are quoting me, whereas you are putting your own opinions -- or fears -- there.

6. What you do with logic is your own pass time and I don't care about it. Logic may be what you like, but it is not a particularly authoritative skill, and, while not damaging, it has certainly no bearing whatsoever on me personally or society as such, and it is not particularyl useful for your emotional and mental wellbeing, only an excercise in rational thought.

7. "Proper [d]emocracy" -- by the way, no need for a capital letter there -- is fictitious. It's a falacy, i.e. it does not exist anywhere in the world and never has.

As I said, I have written about it in another discussion on the same forum yesterday and have no intention of repeating it here.

8. Eventually, as for your pompous claim of allegedly "correcting" me -- and again as I said before -- you have no clue what you are talking about.

I have explained on the other discussion on this same forum why so-called "states" have nothing to do with societies. If you care to learn something, you may look it upo, if you do not -- that's your own business. But do not try to "correct" me with your "knowledge" based on grade 11 Political Theory Abbreviated for Highschool Cheerleaders or something of the kind, because you look bad when you do that.

1. A rapist is not "worth the same as an altruist", because people are not objects and therefore not "worth". People are equal in their inalienable human rights, including the right to life. Yes, a apist, indeed a mass murderer of a bus load od babies is equal to the greates artist, medical scientists etc.

If you had to choose whether Bush and Cheney would die, or a man who would one day discover a cure for AIDS, who would you pick to die? If you would flip a coin, I believe you. Otherwise I assume you'd choose Bush and Cheney to die. A perfectly logic pick. One productive life is worth more then two crappy ones.

2. This is not because I say so, but because these are facts. Therefore I honour your so-called questions with an answer, because as a human being you are equal to other humans, thus: you deserve to be illuminated when you fail. Personally, I do not need to do that. It's tiresome as you are rude, and your education is lacking. But I have done it twice. And I will probably stop.

Telling me my education is lacking disappoints me. I think you're intelligent (most folks against the death penalty are). Must I be uneducated because I disagree with you?

3. Biological in my sentence means genetics. Biology is broader than genetics. I was being economical.

Very well.

Now, everyone has genes, and genes have selfish interests. It is in your best interest for humanity to survive. Of course, those that share more of your genetic pool are those whom you cherish more. But even mass murderers like William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, now dead Yassir Arafat and Saddam Husein also have relatives who share their genetic pool.

Saddam wouldn't hesitate to personally kill an innocent. Likely Bush and Clinton would. So they are both bothered more by pangs of some vague conscience. However, logically speaking, you are correct. They're all dumb. Not that that has a damn thing to do with my argument.

In a society it is the best interest of everybody that no one is murdered by others or by the state. What you loose on scarce resources is complemented by what you get in preservation of humankind.

Humankind is already too large. Preservation of it's aberrant parts serves no purpose. How is it in everybody's interest?

Also at the biological level, it is also good for your mental health/wellbeing for humans around you not to be killed.

I agree completely.

Indeed your desire to murder people (however attrocious deeds they may have done to you or others) sprouts from trauma you have experienced.

I have had a sheltered, and perhaps overly-cushy life. If I experienced any trauma it is little compared to most traumas.

4. Philosophies most certainly do not "differ from person to person". Very few people delve into philosophy, let alone work seriously with it. Outlook on life is NOT philosophy. Ethics is more widespread, but it is also more standardised -- it certainly does not differ from person to person.

They sure as hell do. Cynics, Epicureans, and Stoics are all examples of conflicting philosophies.
I point out the fact that your ethics contradict that Ayn Rand lover's. A blatant example of ethical variance (which you deny exists).

5. I never said anything of the kind of the silly sentence you falsified there by putting it under quotes "it's against my philosophy/ethics, ergo it's wrong", falsely suggesting that you are quoting me, whereas you are putting your own opinions -- or fears -- there.

I was summing-up your opinions in a nutshell. You have a certain set of ethics. You say those who transgress them commit wrong. You don't say they may be committing a wrong, you say they are.

6. What you do with logic is your own pass time and I don't care about it. Logic may be what you like, but it is not a particularly authoritative skill, and, while not damaging, it has certainly no bearing whatsoever on me personally or society as such, and it is not particularyl useful for your emotional and mental wellbeing, only an excercise in rational thought.

My emotional and mental well-being are of secondary nature. Society's welfare comes first. A child molester gains "well-being" by his actions. However, they are not in tune with the requirements of society.


7. "Proper [d]emocracy" -- by the way, no need for a capital letter there --

Thank you; though I do believe you're pettifogging a bit here.

is fictitious. It's a falacy, i.e. it does not exist anywhere in the world and never has.

World peace has never existed. Therefor trying to stop a a war is absurd?


As I said, I have written about it in another discussion on the same forum yesterday and have no intention of repeating it here.

I'll around to that when I get around to Ayn Rand.


8. Eventually, as for your pompous claim of allegedly "correcting" me -- and again as I said before -- you have no clue what you are talking about.


Actually I do. I wasn't saying you're "wrong". From a moral stance you're 100% in the right. I'm just saying logic is against you on this point.

I have explained on the other discussion on this same forum why so-called "states" have nothing to do with societies. If you care to learn something, you may look it upo, if you do not -- that's your own business. But do not try to "correct" me with your "knowledge" based on grade 11 Political Theory Abbreviated for Highschool Cheerleaders or something of the kind, because you look bad when you do that.

Once again you claim that I am stupid because I do not agree with you. I am again disappointed.

One could argue that letting them live is unnecessary too.


Of course. But between killing someone and not killing someone, all things being equal, I think most people would go with the latter.

Of course. But between killing someone and not killing someone, all things being equal, I think most people would go with the latter.

I must side with you here. Killing requires no action. You don't say "why not?" you say "why?" One is passive, the other is active.

No, they should not be executed. You always could be mistaken...

Locked away forever will do the trick.

And I would like to humiliate them.

• Atheist ist have to listen to TV preachers for the entire day.
• We'll make sure that female Christians get pregnant and in the eight month we'll force an abortion.
• The male Christians will have whole day long. Homosexual .
• Muslims have to eat 'coq au vin' every day and white Christian women will e on the Muslim males.
• The female Muslims will be forced to run around .
• Jewish ists will always smell some gas in their cage.

Any way, for any kind of ist, we'll find something fun.

Technically I'm an Atheist and I've been listening to preachers my whole life but I've learned to space out on my command so instead of doing that deprive them of light for 12 days (I mean no lights at all) in a unheated room and them keep them under constant light for another 12 days (no darkness at all) and keep switching (but give them a sweater in the winter) and make so there is constant noise for three and a half days then for the other three and a half days complete and total silence if they live with a sane mind after that turn them into a quadriplegic and take out they're eyes and tongue

Now thats fun *Laughs manically *

Now you object Once again you claim that I am stupid because I do not agree with you. I am again disappointed. and yet you either are unable to understand what I said or you imagine that your pathetic sidestepping will be overlooked and allowed:
If you had to choose whether Bush and Cheney would die, or a man who would one day discover a cure for AIDS, who would you pick to die? If you would flip a coin, I believe you. Otherwise I assume you'd choose Bush and Cheney to die. A perfectly logic pick. One productive life is worth more then two crappy ones.

No, I "would" and shall NOT pick anyone to die, and neither shall you have the right to do so. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT. NO ONE. And those who do it, do it by usurping a right they do not have. It does NOT mean that anyone should retaliate and murder those usurpers, but incarcerate them.

How many times do I have to repeat this postulate before you comprehend that that is what it is in my world?


Telling me my education is lacking disappoints me.

Well, it's not my, but your own, problem, now isn't it?

I don't particularly care if you are elated or disappointed.


I think you're intelligent (most folks against the death penalty are).

I do not seek, or care about, approval from anonymous people on these boards -- or indeed from 99.9999% of humanity -- so it's all the same to me: you may think whatever you wish about me.


Must I be uneducated because I disagree with you?

No you needn't, but apparently -- in my frames of reference -- you are.


Saddam wouldn't hesitate to personally kill an innocent. Likely Bush and Clinton would. So they are both bothered more by pangs of some vague conscience. However, logically speaking, you are correct. They're all dumb. Not that that has a damn thing to do with my argument.

Actually I never said that they were dumb and I do not think that all proponents of murder (aka "death penalty") are. In that lies the danger: some of thos vile individuals are quite intelligent and abl;e to entice others to follow their line of arguments. But that doersn' mean that they have the right or that anyone should support retaliation in a likewise manner.



In a society it is the best interest of everybody that no one is murdered by others or by the state. What you loose on scarce resources is complemented by what you get in preservation of humankind.
Humankind is already too large. Preservation of it's aberrant parts serves no purpose. How is it in everybody's interest?

It is and it isn't too large. That is irrelevant for the discussion on permissibility of murder at all -- and ESPECIALLY a state-orchestrated murder (aka "death penalty", where the "haves" will eliminate "have nots" in any given state, and these catgories may differ dramatically between states).

Moreover, "aberrant" is a falacy too. Everyone is unique, distinct, and the fact that some of these uniqunesses are closer to each other to create the "centre" does not mean that the geniuses (who are at times more aberrant than murderers) or indeed murderers themselves are less human than you.

All human beings have the right to life. No human has the right to end this life, not even in euthanasia. One can facilitate other people's suicide, after having tried to dissuade them first, but certainly not to commit murder by unplugging life support system, even if that be the express wish of the terminally ill. Only the terminally ill patient, like anyone else, has a right to end his/her own life if she/he so chooses.



Philosophies most certainly do not "differ from person to person". Very few people delve into philosophy, let alone work seriously with it. Outlook on life is NOT philosophy. Ethics is more widespread, but it is also more standardised -- it certainly does not differ from person to person.
They sure as hell do. Cynics, Epicureans, and Stoics are all examples of conflicting philosophies.
I point out the fact that your ethics contradict that Ayn Rand lover's. A blatant example of ethical variance (which you deny exists).

Again (as I said before): you do not understand, cynics of Antiquity as a branch of philosophy have nothing to do with cynics as a character trait since 17th century (i.e. post-Enlightenment).

Cynics of Antiquity were very few. Most people did not engage in philosophy, just like they do not today.

A lifestyle, a Weltanschauung, and even a belief if it is not carried out according to principles of philosophical discourse, are NOT philosophy.

Philosophy is the privilege of the few who can afford to spend time on it. Most scholars cannot -- they have to work on developping products or researching the markets.



5. I never said anything of the kind of the silly sentence you falsified there by putting it under quotes "it's against my philosophy/ethics, ergo it's wrong", falsely suggesting that you are quoting me, whereas you are putting your own opinions -- or fears -- there.
I was summing-up your opinions in a nutshell. You have a certain set of ethics. You say those who transgress them commit wrong. You don't say they may be committing a wrong, you say they are.

Nonsense: you were not summing up anything, just projecting your own fears of daring to look at the world from my perspective.

I never said anything of the kind. I do not operate with "wrongs" -- as I said before, it must come from your traumas while growing up.


My emotional and mental well-being are of secondary nature. Society's welfare comes first. A child molester gains "well-being" by his actions. However, they are not in tune with the requirements of society.

As I said about 20 times so far: "society" does not exist as an entity. It is the result of the forces (thought, deeds, projections) of its integral parts, put together haphazardly at any given moment.

A child molester certainly does not get "well being" from molesting, but I allow that he (OK, I'll be politically correct and say "or she", even though women make up less than 4% of reported cases) gets gratification. Gratification is a small part of well being, which also includes conscience, being at ease with oneself, feeling of success/achievement, secrity, atunemnt to the environment and plenty more.


World peace has never existed. Therefor trying to stop a a war is absurd?

Actually, that is not true. There have been many days without war in human history -- if I remember correctly, about whole 32 years since the year 586 B.C.E. (before Common era). 32 out of 2600 years may appear too little, but they have existed.

As for wars, as I said: no human being has the right to murder another human being. Killing an enemy in war is murder.



As I said, I have written about it in another discussion on the same forum yesterday and have no intention of repeating it here.
I'll around to that when I get around to Ayn Rand.

Well, go ahead: "around to" (huh?) it whenever is convenmient for you. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. Ayn Rand, is it that pathetic scribbler who fled Russia and published boring, poorly written heavy tomes of printed paper?



8. Eventually, as for your pompous claim of allegedly "correcting" me -- and again as I said before -- you have no clue what you are talking about.
Actually I do. I wasn't saying you're "wrong". From a moral stance you're 100% in the right. I'm just saying logic is against you on this point.
No it is not. Not that it matters, though, as logic is just an excercise in rational thought and not a meritorious point.

And -- again -- what you are saying here now is not true (I'm polite and won't say that you are lying): earlier you were saying that you were "correcting", and that would imply that you have the competence -- which, of course, you do NOT -- to decide whether something is inaccurate.

Anyway... talking to you is way too boring...

The problem is…what is a terrorist?

You could shoot and kill, lock him/her in a cage, torture or whatever amusement you have in your head.

But still, what’s a terrorist?

For many people around the globe, Bush is a terrorist.

One W.J. Clinton was a terrorist. He ordered the bombing of Nis maternity ward in Serbia, 250 km from Kosovo, with depleted uranium.

BTW, Nis is the city where Roman emperor Constantine the Great (the one who decriminalised Christianity and indeed allegedly converted to it at deathbed) was born.

Now you object and yet you either are unable to understand what I said or you imagine that your pathetic sidestepping will be overlooked and allowed:

You'll have to admit that I am the most civil of the folks you've argued with on this thread, even if you consider me a bit dense.

No, I "would" and shall NOT pick anyone to die, and neither shall you have the right to do so. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT. NO ONE. And those who do it, do it by usurping a right they do not have. It does NOT mean that anyone should retaliate and murder those usurpers, but incarcerate them.

How many times do I have to repeat this postulate before you comprehend that that is what it is in my world?

Well then. I concede that you are staunch on your morals, and not merely debating as I previously thought. However, you sound a bit like Kant when he says it is so important not to lie. I'm certain of course whatever you say is how it is in "your" world. Now, comprehend mine.

Well, it's not my, but your own, problem, now isn't it?

I don't particularly care if you are elated or disappointed.

A pity. I generally am quite fond of the people I debate with.

I do not seek, or care about, approval from anonymous people on these boards -- or indeed from 99.9999% of humanity -- so it's all the same to me: you may think whatever you wish about me.


Another trait of the clerisy.


No you needn't, but apparently -- in my frames of reference -- you are.

Of course you mean I'm unintelligent, not uneducated. Education is not really something that is relative, unlike intelligence.

Actually I never said that they were dumb and I do not think that all proponents of murder (aka "death penalty") are. In that lies the danger: some of those vile individuals are quite intelligent and abl;e to entice others to follow their line of arguments. But that doersn' mean that they have the right or that anyone should support retaliation in a likewise manner.

I was referring to the slaughter caused in Iraq with Bush, and the innocents who died when Clinton tried that bombing for terrorists, but only killed civilians.
Bush is dumb because we can see it; Clinton is dumb because he is inept; Saddam is dumb because he couldn't hold onto power when it was so easy.

"If everyone lived by 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' the world would be blind and toothless."


It is and it isn't too large. That is irrelevant for the discussion on permissibility of murder at all -- and ESPECIALLY a state-orchestrated murder (aka "death penalty", where the "haves" will eliminate "have nots" in any given state, and these catgories may differ dramatically between states).

What's your point?

Moreover, "aberrant" is a falacy too. Everyone is unique, distinct, and the fact that some of these uniqunesses are closer to each other to create the "centre" does not mean that the geniuses (who are at times more aberrant than murderers) or indeed murderers themselves are less human than you.

When I refer to aberrant, I mean a destructive human being. A schizophrenic hobo would not be aberrant under this category unless he killed people. "Human" is a relative term, whereas unwanted graffiti is always destructive.

All human beings have the right to life. No human has the right to end this life, not even in euthanasia. One can facilitate other people's suicide, after having tried to dissuade them first, but certainly not to commit murder by unplugging life support system, even if that be the express wish of the terminally ill. Only the terminally ill patient, like anyone else, has a right to end his/her own life if she/he so chooses.

I admire you for your rigid morals. I'm afraid I must disagree, but still, I admire them.

Again (as I said before): you do not understand, cynics of Antiquity as a branch of philosophy have nothing to do with cynics as a character trait since 17th century (i.e. post-Enlightenment).

I'm well aware of that.

Cynics of Antiquity were very few. Most people did not engage in philosophy, just like they do not today.

But they still had philosophy.

A lifestyle, a Weltanschauung, and even a belief if it is not carried out according to principles of philosophical discourse, are NOT philosophy.

I care to differ. You don't have to discuss your philosophy for it to exist.

Philosophy is the privilege of the few who can afford to spend time on it. Most scholars cannot -- they have to work on developping products or researching the markets.


Philosophy, whatever it derived from, is how you live life. Everyone has to have one to a some extent, or else they wouldn't live life.

Nonsense: you were not summing up anything, just projecting your own fears of daring to look at the world from my perspective.

I never said anything of the kind. I do not operate with "wrongs" -- as I said before, it must come from your traumas while growing up.

I do not believe that "fear" is an issue here.

As I said about 20 times so far: "society" does not exist as an entity. It is the result of the forces (thought, deeds, projections) of its integral parts, put together haphazardly at any given moment.

Correct. And I'm merely stating that removing rusty parts that go around wrecking the machine should be removed.

A child molester certainly does not get "well being" from molesting, but I allow that he (OK, I'll be politically correct and say "or she", even though women make up less than 4% of reported cases) gets gratification. Gratification is a small part of well being, which also includes conscience, being at ease with oneself, feeling of success/achievement, secrity, atunemnt to the environment and plenty more.

Suppose they're a sociopath.


Actually, that is not true. There have been many days without war in human history -- if I remember correctly, about whole 32 years since the year 586 B.C.E. (before Common era). 32 out of 2600 years may appear too little, but they have existed.

I would like to see proof of that. I do not believe there was a day that went by without a war of some sort going on.

As for wars, as I said: no human being has the right to murder another human being. Killing an enemy in war is murder.


Murder: n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, esp. with premeditated malice.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary.

If you believe that all killing fulfills these requirements...or if you prove it to me, then I say that murder is a part of humankind and that we should all live with it.

Well, go ahead: "around to" (huh?) it whenever is convenmient for you. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. Ayn Rand, is it that pathetic scribbler who fled Russia and published boring, poorly written heavy tomes of printed paper?

The subject of pettifoggery again becomes relevant.

No it is not. Not that it matters, though, as logic is just an excercise in rational thought and not a meritorious point.

In my opinion, outside of a working in a church it is the only meritorious point.

And -- again -- what you are saying here now is not true (I'm polite and won't say that you are lying): earlier you were saying that you were "correcting", and that would imply that you have the competence -- which, of course, you do NOT -- to decide whether something is inaccurate.

It does not bother me if you say I am lying. I've been told I'm a compulsive liar, so I'm used to it.
Anyway, you're correct. I don't "know" the absolute truth anymore then you do.

Anyway... talking to you is way too boring...

Since the only purpose there is to an online debate is recreation, you have adequate cause to withdraw from the discussion.

Life imprisonment in my opinion is actually worse than the death penalty. Spending a possibility of 50-100 years in confinement with no ability to go anywhere. The worse part of them being in prison for life is that the tax payers in that country are paying for a murderer, possibly a relative/freinds murderer, to be fed and housed for the rest of his life. And whose to say that this hypothetical person were to get out of jail and kill more people. Should we also hold the jail and the guards working at the time of said escape partially liable for another persons death? Why risk all this when you can simply shoot the bastard and bill the bullet(s) to his family.:sniper:

blah blah and for the millionth time same old blah blah...

For the last time:

1. Philosophy is a very distinct branch of human scholarly endeavour. It most certainly is not what the word has been misused colloquially for, i.e. how people who are not versed in the principles of philosophy live their lives.

2. Education and intelligence are quite distinct -- only marginally connected. When I say "uneducated", I mean that and not "unintelligent", and when I specifically say that that is what I mean that's it. Insisting further that I -- and not you -- mean something else than what I say I do is rather infantile of you.

3. Every act of killing is murder. Homicide means "murder of a man" with Latin roots and "manslaughter" means "murder of a man" with Old Germanic roots.

4. I have explained all this before a few times. But you admit that you are testing whether I (as you probably do?) debate for the sake of debate or because I believe in what I say. Well, I do not debate. I express my opinions. When you quote me and ask a myriad questions, I feel you are too demanding, but I reply, because I am a person of integrity. When you refuse to heed my answers and keep probing with your "debate-for-debate's-sake" tautologies, I realise it is futile talking to you, ergo: a waste of my time and I am therefore bored.

-------------

That is why I shall indeed stop answering to you in relation to this thread herewith.

For the last time:

1. Philosophy is a very distinct branch of human scholarly endeavour. It most certainly is not what the word has been misused colloquially for, i.e. how people who are not versed in the principles of philosophy live their lives.

2. Education and intelligence are quite distinct -- only marginally connected. When I say "uneducated", I mean that and not "unintelligent", and when I specifically say that that is what I mean that's it. Insisting further that I -- and not you -- mean something else than what I say I do is rather infantile of you.

3. Every act of killing is murder. Homicide means "murder of a man" with Latin roots and "manslaughter" means "murder of a man" with Old Germanic roots.

4. I have explained all this before a few times. But you admit that you are testing whether I (as you probably do?) debate for the sake of debate or because I believe in what I say. Well, I do not debate. I express my opinions. When you quote me and ask a myriad questions, I feel you are too demanding, but I reply, because I am a person of integrity. When you refuse to heed my answers and keep probing with your "debate-for-debate's-sake" tautologies, I realise it is futile talking to you, ergo: a waste of my time and I am therefore bored.

-------------

That is why I shall indeed stop answering to you in relation to this thread herewith.

Very well. But when I said debate for recreation, I meant it. I do indeed debate for recreation. I'm not at all interested in "connecting".

Killing is murder. And vice versa. Look it up any etymologycal dictionary.

No it's not. Killing also includes manslaughter, negligent homicide, and whatnot.

Unless you're a Kantian.

3. Every act of killing is murder. Homicide means "murder of a man" with Latin roots and "manslaughter" means "murder of a man" with Old Germanic roots.

MS, the hot air you've generated on this thread could actually start global climate change.

But confining my comments to your third point, you are simply wrong, factually as well as legally. The etymology of "homicide", from Latin homo = man and caedere = cut, kill, is "killing of a man", not "murder of a man". Likewise, the etymology of "manslaughter", from Old English man + slæht = act of killing, is "killing of a man." So, you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to either Latin or Anglo-Saxon roots.

You also don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the legal definition of murder, as others on this thread have conclusively established. The law, from ancient times, has recognized and continues to recognize various degrees of guilt for killings, from highest, e.g., unlawful homicide with malice aforethought = murder (at common law) and various statutory definitions of murder, through killing in the heat of passion, typically manslaughter, down to self-defense, or justifiable homicide. That is a fact, whether or not you like it, accept it or approve of it.

You are of course free to climb up on your soapbox and proclaim your moral superiority, based on your absolutist view that every homicide is identical in degree of culpability and constitutes "murder." But don't expect many people to agree with your self-assessment, to react to your posturing with anything other than laughter, or to be persuaded that you are indulging in anything other than moral masturbation.

MS, the hot air you've generated on this thread could actually start global climate change.

But confining my comments to your third point, you are simply wrong, factually as well as legally. The etymology of "homicide", from Latin homo = man [blah blah] So, you really don't [blah blah].

You also don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the legal definition of murder, [blah bla] .

You are of course free to climb up on your soapbox and proclaim your moral superiority, based on your absolutist view that every homicide is identical in degree of culpability and constitutes "murder." But don't expect many people to agree with your self-assessment, to react to your posturing with anything other than laughter, or to be persuaded that you are indulging in anything other than moral masturbation.


On the other hand, of course, no one is under obligation to possess an IQ that allows him/her to comprehend that murder means causing death of a person -- ONLY that:
------------------------
[mur·der]
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
-------------------------
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder


Likewise, the Germanic root in "slaughter" means kill -- EQUALS MURDER (v. supra), as does Latin "cædere".

genocide = MURDER of a people. homicide = MURDER of a human.

Just like genocide is not an accidental self-defence strategy, homicide isn't either.

As for slaughterhouses, that (to some pathetic ignorami) would probably mean that cows and pigs are jumping around causing havoc and attacking people who then accidentally run them over with a car?

-----------------

In any case, a person who has some reasoning ability -- i.e. IQ of -- say -- over 80, would not expect that everyone follows the same line of reasoning and worships the same phenomena as him-/herself, be these phenomena collecting of beer bottles, or the so-called "law".

The use of so-called "law" as an argument is the last pseudo-defence of lost cases (if they do possess a reasoning ability, that is -- else it may be an automatic rendering of a quasi-mantra). They usually fail to mention the "law" against miscagenation, the "law" that forbade Blacks to vote, the law that forbade women to vote, the Nuremberg racial "laws".

Actually, from the point of view of the proponents of the so-called laws -- poor wretches -- none of these would be under quotes, as they recognise the authority of "laws" as unquestionable.

On the other hand, of course, no one is under obligation to possess an IQ that allows him/her to comprehend that murder means causing death of a person -- ONLY that:
------------------------
[mur·der]
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
-------------------------
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder


Likewise, the Germanic root in "slaughter" means kill -- EQUALS MURDER (v. supra), as does Latin "cædere".

genocide = MURDER of a people. homicide = MURDER of a human.

Just like genocide is not an accidental self-defence strategy, homicide isn't either.

As for slaughterhouses, that (to some pathetic ignorami) would probably mean that cows and pigs are jumping around causing havoc and attacking people who then accidentally run them over with a car?

-----------------

In any case, a person who has some reasoning ability -- i.e. IQ of -- say -- over 80, would not expect that everyone follows the same line of reasoning and worships the same phenomena as him-/herself, be these phenomena collecting of beer bottles, or the so-called "law".

The use of so-called "law" as an argument is the last pseudo-defence of lost cases (if they do possess a reasoning ability, that is -- else it may be an automatic rendering of a quasi-mantra). They usually fail to mention the "law" against miscagenation, the "law" that forbade Blacks to vote, the law that forbade women to vote, the Nuremberg racial "laws".

Actually, from the point of view of the proponents of the so-called laws -- poor wretches -- none of these would be under quotes, as they recognise the authority of "laws" as unquestionable.

We're not interested in archaic definitions. We're interested in modern ones. I already post the modern definition on this page.

There is no acceptable justification for capital punishment.

Either it's wrong to kill a human, or it isn't, make up your mind.

There is no acceptable justification for capital punishment.

Either it's wrong to kill a human, or it isn't, make up your mind.

It's logical to execute people. "Wrong" is a point of view, logic sticks. Let logic be your guide. *see my debate contained in the last few pages*

It's logical to execute people. "Wrong" is a point of view, logic sticks. Let logic be your guide. *see my debate contained in the last few pages*

Except logic doesn't stick.

"It's logical to kill people to stop them killing people." doesn't hold much weight, does it.

Simply put, I am letting logic be my guide (hence: killing is either wrong for everyone, or right for everyone*), my logic simply differs from yours.

Logic is just as subjective as morality.

*Killing humans, I hasten to add, as none of us could survive without killing something.

Except logic doesn't stick.

"It's logical to kill people to stop them killing people." doesn't hold much weight, does it.

Simply put, I am letting logic be my guide (hence: killing is either wrong for everyone, or right for everyone*), my logic simply differs from yours.

Logic is just as subjective as morality.

*Killing humans, I hasten to add, as none of us could survive without killing something.

Killing isn't inherently wrong. "Wrong", once again is a point of view. The affect you have upon society by killing the productive members is unacceptable and detrimental to the whole. Aberrant members are parasites, nothing more. Killing them (not productive members) ensures that they don't consume any more, and do no more damage. Of course, logically speaking it would even better if you could get them to produce. But generally this requires more then it offers.

Killing isn't inherently wrong. "Wrong", once again is a point of view. The affect you have upon society by killing the productive members is unacceptable and detrimental to the whole. Aberrant members are parasites, nothing more. Killing them (not productive members) ensures that they don't consume any more, and do no more damage. Of course, logically speaking it would even better if you could get them to produce. But generally this requires more then it offers.

a) I agree, morality is subjective, but so is logic.

b) You assume that the murderer's victims are productive, rather than being parasitical themselves

c) You're assuming that the murderer cannot simultaneously kill and be productive, despite your assertion that killing the unproductive is justified, logically.

Logically, in considering a murderer's sentence, then, one must take into account the nature of his victim/s and their current (potential can only be hypothesised, after all) productivity, and weigh it against the murderer's own, and the needs of society.

Which, in the absence of emotional argument, would lead to many child-murderers walking free, as children aren't very productive.

a) I agree, morality is subjective, but so is logic.

b) You assume that the murderer's victims are productive, rather than being parasitical themselves.

Correct. People would often be robbed and killed by parasites for the for the fruits of their superior production.


c) You're assuming that the murderer cannot simultaneously kill and be productive, despite your assertion that killing the unproductive is justified, logically.


I'm assuming they can't kill a productive member and still be productive, as the natures of killing a boon to society is unproductive.

Logically, in considering a murderer's sentence, then, one must take into account the nature of his victim/s and their current (potential can only be hypothesised, after all) productivity, and weigh it against the murderer's own, and the needs of society.

Correct. If you shoot someone burglarizing your house, you do not get put to death.

Which, in the absence of emotional argument, would lead to many child-murderers walking free, as children aren't very productive.

First-off children aren't detrimental. They're neutral: neither a detriment nor a boon. You cannot kill people who are neutral and be let-off. The victim must be a detriment.

Second, children are almost always considered productive members for all due purposes because they likely will be when they grow-up. They are the "raw-material" for constructing productive members and generally make-up for the resources poured into them. A child-murderer wastes used resources that were being invested in a likely boon.

The same would be said of criminals if rehabilitation worked over 50% of the time; unfortunately it doesn't.

There is ample justification for capital punishment.

Either it's wrong to murder a human, or it isn't, make up your mind.

Corrected. Mind made up.

What's wrong is keeping the punishment from fitting the crime.

Correct. People would often be robbed and killed by parasites for the for the fruits of their superior production.

... I fail to see the relevance of this in response to my statement?


I'm assuming they can't kill a productive member and still be productive, as the natures of killing a boon to society is unproductive.


So you're conceding that private citizens can kill other private (or non-private) citizens as long as the victim is unproductive?

Fair enough, in the context of logic.

Correct. If you shoot someone burglarizing your house, you do not get put to death.

But this is illogical, as it doesn't take productivity into account. If the killer is a crack dealer, and the burglar a father of four trying to make the rent, who's the more productive?

Clearly a more in-depth, case-by-case analysis is required.

First-off children aren't detrimental. They're neutral: neither a detriment nor a boon. You cannot kill people who are neutral and be let-off. The victim must be a detriment.

Unless, of course, the killer's productivity is sufficient.

Second, children are almost always considered productive members for all due purposes because they likely will be when they grow-up. They are the "raw-material" for constructing productive members and generally make-up for the resources poured into them. A child-murderer wastes used resources that were being invested in a likely boon.

Illogical, productivity cannot be presumed, while these children are the "raw-material" for constructing productive members of society, they are the same for the criminal (or aberrant, or parasitical) members of society.

Therefore, strictly using logic, their very neutrality makes them a viable target, as all arguments in their favour also work against them.

The same would be said of criminals if rehabilitation worked over 50% of the time; unfortunately it doesn't.

Potential cannot be measured, therefore logically anyone more productive is technically permitted to kill these people, whether they are convicted or not.

Corrupted. Mind made up.

What's wrong is keeping the punishment from fitting the crime.

Corrected.

On the other hand, of course, no one is under obligation to possess an IQ . . . .

In any case, a person who has some reasoning ability -- i.e. IQ of -- say -- over 80, would not expect that everyone follows the same line of reasoning and worships the same phenomena as him-/herself, be these phenomena collecting of beer bottles, or the so-called "law".

I won't bother responding to puerile references to my IQ, a subject about which you have as little knowledge as you have about the topic of this thread, other than to note that people who impugn the IQ's of others, like men who drive oversized trucks, may be trying to compensate for some deficiency.

As for your attempt to equate legal recognition of degrees of homicide with laws concerning miscegenation, I can only laugh at your inept analogy. The argument "all killing is murder" is a false statement of law. It can't be rationalized or made correct by pointing to previous laws that were never generally adopted, are now inoperative, and were relatively recent innovations and not part of the common law in any event.

You can cry "all killing should be considered murder" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that all killing is not murder. If and when (God forbid) your view becomes the law, then, under the law, all killing will be murder. At which point more realistic and enlightented forces will seek the repeal of such morally obtuse laws and consign them to the same fate as the laws against miscegenation.

What's wrong is keeping the punishment from fitting the crime.

Incidentally, what exactly do you mean by this?

You mean robbers should be robbed? Rapists should be raped, murderers should be murdered con-men should be tricked, fraudsters should be defrauded, perjurers(?) should be... lied to in a relevant topic, child molesters should be... molested by children... ?

Give us a hint here?

... I fail to see the relevance of this in response to my statement?

Repossession of society's production is inefficient and detrimental.

So you're conceding that private citizens can kill other private (or non-private) citizens as long as the victim is unproductive?

They have to be detrimental. Merely being unproductive does not warrant death.

Fair enough, in the context of logic.

The only context I'm concerned with.

But this is illogical, as it doesn't take productivity into account. If the killer is a crack dealer, and the burglar a father of four trying to make the rent, who's the more productive?

The dealer should be put to death for being a dealer, but not for shooting a burglars. A detriment killing other detriments isn't excused.

Clearly a more in-depth, case-by-case analysis is required.

It has just been provided. A burglar too lazy to get a job is killed, and drug-dealer is busted. Good day.

Unless, of course, the killer's productivity is sufficient.

It would indeed have to be high. Killing another member loses many resources used to create that member. This where prison comes in: a super-productive-killer may work his-ass-off for society's benefit to stay alive.

Illogical, productivity cannot be presumed, while these children are the "raw-material" for constructing productive members of society, they are the same for the criminal (or aberrant, or parasitical) members of society.

Children generally grow-up to be productive by probability. Prisoners generally commit more crimes after they are released.

Therefore, strictly using logic, their very neutrality makes them a viable target, as all arguments in their favour also work against them.


No they don't.

Potential cannot be measured, therefore logically anyone more productive is technically permitted to kill these people, whether they are convicted or not.

Potential of children is far higher then prisoners. Laws are adjusted according to probable value of target. A prisoner posses a lower potential then a child, and is therefor worth...less.

Repossession of society's production is inefficient and detrimental.

You're still making the (illogical) assumption that the victim is productive.


They have to be detrimental. Merely being unproductive does not warrant death.

Then, again, we still need to prove that the killers' actions are detrimental, as, under your new qualifications, he merely has to prove his own neutrality, rather than his productivity.

The only context I'm concerned with.

But logic isn't absolute.

The dealer should be put to death for being a dealer, but not for shooting a burglars. A detriment killing other detriments isn't excused.

I see we've moved on from "Killers should be killed" to "detriments should be killed". Disturbing, yet it also has its own logic.

It has just been provided. A burglar too lazy to get a job is killed, and drug-dealer is busted. Good day.

This ignores the details of the situation, the subjectivity, and instead forces absolutes. (How do you know he was too lazy, for example). Clearly, then, even if the killer in this instance is not a crack dealer, has has killed, therefore he should be killed. No mitigation.


It would indeed have to be high. Killing another member loses many resources used to create that member. This where prison comes in: a super-productive-killer may work his-ass-off for society's benefit to stay alive.

But then, logically, why not all killers? They're still in prison, after all. That's assuming anything productive happens in prisons, of course.

Children generally grow-up to be productive by probability. Prisoners generally commit more crimes after they are released.

This differs depending on geographic location. Should the children of a certain area be more acceptable targets than those of an area whose children have a greater chance of becoming productive members of society?

No they don't.

Each child has a certain probability of growing up to become a productive member of society, call this x, a certain chance of becoming a detriment to society, call this y, and a certain chance of neutrality on whatever scale you're using to measure productivity/detriment, call this z.

Logically, therefore, in the case of each child murdered, one must establish the likelihood of the child's x, y, or x+y outweighing their z added to the culprit's x, y, or x+y.

Tricky, given that we haven't been given a definition of "productive."

Potential of children is far higher then prisoners. Laws are adjusted according to probable value of target. A prisoner posses a lower potential then a child, and is therefor worth...less.

Potential cannot be used in any logical method of establishing guilt, as it is too vague and ill-defined.

We're not interested in archaic definitions. We're interested in modern ones. I already post the modern definition on this page.

Corrupted and degenerated interpretations are false, even though they may be interpreted as "more modern" in chronological terms alone.

The only proper meaning is the authentic one.

Besides in words such as "genocide", "insecticide" and "homicide", the "-cide" part means exactly the same: murder -- a premeditated deliberate activity of ending a life.

Now in the case of insects, that might be justifyable.

You're still making the (illogical) assumption that the victim is productive.

If the victim has resources enough to motivate a killing, then it is likely productive.


Then, again, we still need to prove that the killers' actions are detrimental, as, under your new qualifications, he merely has to prove his own neutrality, rather than his productivity.


Which would be very difficult. Take into account the resources required to create, raise, and maintain his victim. Add the fact that the victim may have provided boons for society in the future and you have a heavy minus to the "score" of the aggressor. If that score is still above zero, then offender is considered worthwhile to maintain. He is put to hard labor and separated from most humans to prevent further detriments.

But logic isn't absolute.

Correct. Logic for Earth would be to eliminate all the humans, which are essentially parasites living-off the planet. However, we're discussing logic for society here.

I see we've moved on from "Killers should be killed" to "detriments should be killed". Disturbing, yet it also has its own logic.

I never moved. "Killers should be killed" is a completely illogical statement.

This ignores the details of the situation, the subjectivity, and instead forces absolutes. (How do you know he was too lazy, for example). Clearly, then, even if the killer in this instance is not a crack dealer, has has killed, therefore he should be killed. No mitigation.


The burglar is lazy because he doesn't have a job. If he can't acquire gainful employment, the nation is illogical in the first place. If someone who isn't a "dealer" kills him, no execution is required. The crack dealer would be put to death for being a crack dealer. The killing would not figure into it.

But then, logically, why not all killers? They're still in prison, after all. That's assuming anything productive happens in prisons, of course.

If the killer has the ability to be productive while be restrained, he may live.

This differs depending on geographic location. Should the children of a certain area be more acceptable targets than those of an area whose children have a greater chance of becoming productive members of society?

Geography leads to complications. A clean slate is reserved for all children, and all are considered possible future-boons.

Each child has a certain probability of growing up to become a productive member of society, call this x, a certain chance of becoming a detriment to society, call this y, and a certain chance of neutrality on whatever scale you're using to measure productivity/detriment, call this z.

The resources required for the study of this would not be acceptable. The above statement remains.

Logically, therefore, in the case of each child murdered, one must establish the likelihood of the child's x, y, or x+y outweighing their z added to the culprit's x, y, or x+y.

Once again I cite the above.

Tricky, given that we haven't been given a definition of "productive."

In this case an individual whose existence benefits the whole. You could be a small cog (a grocery clerk), or a large one (someone who discovers a cure for AIDS); both are productive members.

Potential cannot be used in any logical method of establishing guilt, as it is too vague and ill-defined.

Your potential is categorized by your lack of previous negative actions, and likelihood that you'll improve. A child grows and its brain develops. Therefor, supported by lack of previous negative actions, its potential is quite high.

Corrupted and degenerated interpretations are false, even though they may be interpreted as "more modern" in chronological terms alone.

The only proper meaning is the authentic one.

Besides in words such as "genocide", "insecticide" and "homicide", the "-cide" part means exactly the same: murder -- a premeditated deliberate activity of ending a life.

Now in the case of insects, that might be justifyable.

Ergo the whole English language is false, and we must use Latin. But wait! some of that derived from Greek. Hmm.

Now, why is it more justifiable with insects? And should people be put-away for killing in self defense?

A detriment killing other detriments isn't excused.

Actually, strictly speaking, you have many lines of work that focus on doing just this, though not necessarily by killing. An extreme form of security is essentially the killing of other detriments and the people who do it -may- be detrimental in other aspects of society (being violent, rude, whatnot), but if they can perform that function for society, then they do in fact fulfill a use that means that society doesn't consider them detrimental, meaning that it's possible to be excused.

Actually, strictly speaking, you have many lines of work that focus on doing just this, though not necessarily by killing. An extreme form of security is essentially the killing of other detriments and the people who do it -may- be detrimental in other aspects of society (being violent, rude, whatnot), but if they can perform that function for society, then they do in fact fulfill a use that means that society doesn't consider them detrimental, meaning that it's possible to be excused.

Yes. So long as they limit their killing to detriments. But I highly doubt they could do so more efficiently then the government.

And one killing of a detriment does not balance your account. It may figure into, but as I said, likely won't balance it. It would take many killings, which probably wouldn't happen.

Just as you don't drive drunk or rape someone by accident, you don't make, set and detonate a bomb by accident.

They knew what they were getting in for by doing what they did, they knew people would be hurt and die as a direct result of their actions, and they didn't care. Or worse, they wanted that to happen.

Rehabilitation short of full frontal lobotomy is a waste of time with people who are committed to cruelty of this magnitude. Locking them up in a prison environment won't stop them thinking the way they do and there'd be a chance that they'd spread their poison to others, even from their jail cell. How to address that? Solitary confinement? That's been found to be cruel, as well. You'd choose walling them up in an oublieyet over Jus' Killin' 'Em? Eat veal, do ya?

Having them sit and stew in a cell wouldn't change them, either. They might be sorry, but only because they got caught, they wouldn't be sorry for killing and maiming 4, 30, 350, 1000 people. No external pressure can cause true remorse: he'd fester for 50 years and go to the grave screaming that he's right and the rest of us suck dairy farm canal water.

Wiggle room: I don't support the death penalty for people who sympathize with terrorists, like Moussaoui. I 115% agree with the judge's wise decision to stick him in the stoney lonesome forever and ever. He didn't kill anyone, he was just a bald-faced lying a-hole. But, if a terrorist tries to kill someone and fails, or kills someone and doesn't do it by suicide bombing, then he should reap the hurricane.

The human race could do with a bit of therapeutic culling. Terrorists would be a fair vector. :sniper:

Just as you don't drive drunk or rape someone by accident, you don't make, set and detonate a bomb by accident.

They knew what they were getting in for by doing what they did, they knew people would be hurt and die as a direct result of their actions, and they didn't care. Or worse, they wanted that to happen.

Rehabilitation short of full frontal lobotomy is a waste of time with people who are committed to cruelty of this magnitude. Locking them up in a prison environment won't stop them thinking the way they do and there'd be a chance that they'd spread their poison to others, even from their jail cell. How to address that? Solitary confinement? That's been found to be cruel, as well. You'd choose walling them up in an oublieyet over Jus' Killin' 'Em? Eat veal, do ya?

Having them sit and stew in a cell wouldn't change them, either. They might be sorry, but only because they got caught, they wouldn't be sorry for killing and maiming 4, 30, 350, 1000 people. No external pressure can cause true remorse: he'd fester for 50 years and go to the grave screaming that he's right and the rest of us suck dairy farm canal water.

Wiggle room: I don't support the death penalty for people who sympathize with terrorists, like Moussaoui. I 115% agree with the judge's wise decision to stick him in the stoney lonesome forever and ever. He didn't kill anyone, he was just a bald-faced lying a-hole. But, if a terrorist tries to kill someone and fails, or kills someone and doesn't do it by suicide bombing, then he should reap the hurricane.

The human race could do with a bit of therapeutic culling. Terrorists would be a fair vector. :sniper:

Agreed. But one again: not to serve some ridiculously mutable "justice".

Just as you don't drive drunk or rape someone by accident, you don't make, set and detonate a bomb by accident.

They knew what they were getting in for by doing what they did, they knew people would be hurt and die as a direct result of their actions, and they didn't care. Or worse, they wanted that to happen.

Rehabilitation short of full frontal lobotomy is a waste of time with people who are committed to cruelty of this magnitude. Locking them up in a prison environment won't stop them thinking the way they do and there'd be a chance that they'd spread their poison to others, even from their jail cell. How to address that? Solitary confinement? That's been found to be cruel, as well. You'd choose walling them up in an oublieyet over Jus' Killin' 'Em? Eat veal, do ya?

Having them sit and stew in a cell wouldn't change them, either. They might be sorry, but only because they got caught, they wouldn't be sorry for killing and maiming 4, 30, 350, 1000 people. No external pressure can cause true remorse: he'd fester for 50 years and go to the grave screaming that he's right and the rest of us suck dairy farm canal water.

Wiggle room: I don't support the death penalty for people who sympathize with terrorists, like Moussaoui. I 115% agree with the judge's wise decision to stick him in the stoney lonesome forever and ever. He didn't kill anyone, he was just a bald-faced lying a-hole. But, if a terrorist tries to kill someone and fails, or kills someone and doesn't do it by suicide bombing, then he should reap the hurricane.

The human race could do with a bit of therapeutic culling. Terrorists would be a fair vector. :sniper:

We as a society are going to object to you killing people by killing you. That'll show everyone that killing is wrong.


:confused:

Apparently atheists and agnostics on this board respect life more than their theist friends.

Apparently atheists and agnostics on this board respect life more than their theist friends.

A lot of religions have a history of getting hard about smiting the evil doers, regardless of what their religion says about such things. That idea of killing people for God is unfortunately still present in modern society.

We as a society are going to object to you killing people by killing you. That'll show everyone that killing is wrong.


:confused:

"I'd love to argue with you...! But I won't!"

Killing in, and of itself is not wrong. It's merely who you kill that defines whether, or not he action is negative. *see prior argument*

LOL, I love how the people without any moral system are the ones who are most merciful to killers. Interesting.

I'm a Christian and I support Biblical death penalty for murder. This exists not to show that "murder is wrong", but to discorage "possible" murders from killing.

The death penalty doesn't exist to "teach people not to murder". Most sane people know that murder is "wrong", even if you have no set moral system. The death penalty exists as an incentive for people not to kill.

:mad: :sniper:

In case anyone was wondering what I mean by Biblical death penalty, I mean, if you kill someone, its the government's responsibility to punish the murder with death. I'm not a religious fanatic who goes and blows the heads off all the people who I think are evil doers. It's not my place to judge whether people should live or die.

LOL, I love how the people without any moral system are the ones who are most merciful to killers. Interesting.

I'm a Christian, but I support Biblical death penalty.

:mad: :sniper:

I'm sure Atheists have morals. :rolleyes:

Anyway, logic triumphs.

I'm sure Atheists have morals. :rolleyes:

Anyway, logic triumphs.

Which is why I specified moral system. Some of my best friends are athiests, and in some areas they are "better people" than I am.

What is this "logic" you speak of? :p

Which is why I specified moral system. Some of my best friends are athiests, and in some areas they are "better people" than I am. :p

Morals stupid and variant. "As such, they are incompatible with my personal temperament. I am not one to crouch passively with my hindquarters raised, awaiting either the kick, or the caress of destiny. I am Parkus! Fearless and indomitable, I confront every adversity." Ah, no more tatterblass for me.

Anyway, once again, logic is superior to morals.

Morals stupid and variant. "As such, they are incompatible with my personal temperament. I am not one to crouch passively with my hindquarters raised, awaiting either the kick, or the caress of destiny. I am Parkus! Fearless and indomitable, I confront every adversity." Ah, no more tatterblass for me.

Anyway, once again, logic is superior to morals.

:p See? Not ALL athiests have morals... ;)

:p See? Not ALL athiests have morals... ;)

Whats your point?

:p See? Not ALL athiests have morals... ;)

I'm a not an Atheist. :D

I'm a not an Atheist. :D

:headbang: It was a good guess... :p

:headbang: It was a good guess... :p

It was an awful guess. Use logic boy! Every effect has a cause. Keep tracing that back and the Universe is created. The cause for that effect is unknown, but it would be reasonable to assume, that sentient or no, it is in one way, or another, God. At least that's what I would call the force that created the Universe, whatever it is.

It's a bit preposterous assume the Universe just appeared from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.

No one has the right to kill=murder another human being.

The fact that some people do it, even a thousand times -- and without having a right to do so, of course -- does not give the right to anyone else to kill=murder that person who has done it in the first place.

By killing a mass murderer, you become a murderer as well, and then -- according to your own logic -- others have the right to murder you, and someone them ad infinitum.

You deliberately and viciously mischaracterize my argument.

My argument is this:

It is wrong to kill a human being
Those who kill human beings are no longer humans themselves
Executing those who kill human beings is not wrong, because by #2 we know that what is being killed is in fact not a human being.

Your error is in assuming that murderers are themselves human. See my immediately prior post.

your error is in assuming that just because you said something it magically becomes true.

Oh no, wait, don't tell me, "first principles of the universe" or some other nonsensical bullshit you insist is real yet have totally and utterly failed to substantiate.

There is no acceptable justification for capital punishment.

Either it's wrong to kill a human, or it isn't, make up your mind.

Your error is in assuming that murderers are themselves human. See my immediately prior post.

It was an awful guess. Use logic boy! Every effect has a cause. Keep tracing that back and the Universe is created. The cause for that effect is unknown, but it would be reasonable to assume, that sentient or no, it is in one way, or another, God. At least that's what I would call the force that created the Universe, whatever it is.

It's a bit preposterous assume the Universe just appeared from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.

No, you use logic. The principle of "every cause has an effect" is a rule to this universe. Why couldn't the universe come from nothing? True, something can't come from nothing in this universe, but obviously the rules that bind in this universe would not apply to before there was a universe, now would it?

I have never made any such assumption, and I defy you to point out something I have said that could even be remotely construed as indicating otherwise.

here's you, still not backing up your claims.

your error is in assuming that just because you said something it magically becomes true.

I have never made any such assumption, and I defy you to point out something I have said that could even be remotely construed as indicating otherwise.

Linus, I am so glad you have delivered to us this universal table of moralities. I would never have heard of it otherwise.

Let's hope that when you murder someone in line with your beliefs, they don't throw away the key.

I have to fix your strawman first.

And there's no need for me to back them up myself, since I have pointed you to others who have done the job for me. If I find the arguments given by another to be completely correct and without error (as is the case here), there is no need for me to waste my time and energy restating them when I can just as easily give you a reference.

Here's you, still not backing up your positions. Or, more to point, explaining why you find someone else's argument so true and without error.

here's you, still not backing up your claims.

I have to fix your strawman first.

And there's no need for me to back them up myself, since I have pointed you to others who have done the job for me. If I find the arguments given by another to be completely correct and without error (as is the case here), there is no need for me to waste my time and energy restating them when I can just as easily give you a reference.

Read it and tell me what errors you thought you found in it.

OK, I read it. I found all of it to be in error. Every word.

Prove me wrong.

Here's you, still not backing up your positions. Or, more to point, explaining why you find someone else's argument so true and without error.

Read it and tell me what errors you thought you found in it, and then I'll show you how you're wrong.

Really, I don't know of any other way to demonstrate that the thoughts of another are without error. If you do I'd love to hear it.

Linus, I am so glad you have delivered to us this universal table of moralities. I would never have heard of it otherwise.

Let's hope that when you murder someone in line with your beliefs, they don't throw away the key.

What makes you think I'd murder a human being?

What makes you think I'd murder a human being?

What biological metamorphoses takes place when murder is committed to alter someone sufficiently that they are no longer human?

Perhaps you mean they lose the rights entitled to humans by society. But biologically, by scientific and dictionary definition, they are still, in fact, human.