Are you for or against capital punishment?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by loinburger


Assuming you can afford a lawyer, of course. If not, well, then I guess you'd be SOL.

I shouldnt have a problem with hiring a lawyer.

What do you base your morality off of, nationalist? Carrots and sticks? "If I don't kill people then God will give me a carrot, but if I kill people then God will hit me with a stick" type of deal? That a pretty pathetic way to decide right from wrong. Name a moral absolute for me, since you're so keen on them.

Obviously "Don't torture people" isn't one of them, just as "Don't kill without just cause" isn't one either (unless you're of the mind that "Because he makes me mad!" is a just cause for killing somebody, of course).

I'll name the m,oral absolutes for you. Bear in mind that am an athiest and have been one for many years. Laws are made not on morals, cause as loinburger has so keenly pointed out is that morals are relative to your upbringing, religion, culture, etc. One thing that all Amricans share in common howver is our society in which we live. Therefore, we can, and do make laws based on what is needed to protect society - thanks to the wisdom of our forfathers to seperate church and state.
What i mean by laws protecting society is that ifthere was no law against murdering, then it would happen alot by those who have no moral upbringing that teaches that is wrong. We would have people boarding up their houses and afraid to go outside (and therefore not go to work) because tehy are afraid of being killed. Our Society would break down into anarchy. This same scenario can be replayed over and over again if you take out certain laws, such as various anti-theft laws. If people could steal stuff without repercussion, they would do so. Therefore people would again board up their homes to protect their property.

Laws are meant to protect our society and make it stable through law and order. I love the wonders of civilization and the technology and easy way of life it brings. I define my 'athiest ethics' this way. I dont want to have to hunt and gather for my very survival everyday. I want to go to the movies, go to the store, watch tv, play various sports, paint, play guitar, post replies on an internet forum - all this would not be possible without laws, one of the bases of civilization. This is why I dont break laws, cause everytime I would, I contribute to that little bit of chaos that could be the feather to break the camels back and plunge our society into anarchy. Thats extreme and would never happen probably, but the principle behind it is how I define ethics and the 'moral absolute' of society.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Seeings how less then 100 people are executed per year in the US (I believe but I'm guessing there) I would say it is completely non-sensical to discuss "what ifs" that involve 9,999 or even 8,000. The fact remains the number executed is exceedingly modest where as the number detered is, presumably, quite large.

Texas is by far the leading CP state in the US. They alone acount for something like 57 CP deaths a year. But again, Texas puts by far the most to death, so it is concievable the total put to death a year is around 100.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kramerman
I shouldnt have a problem with hiring a lawyer.

That's fortunate for you, but the point is that your idea of "don't bother reforming the prisons 'cause we can just sue" doesn't work for the working class, which AFAIK makes up the bulk of the prison population.

Laws are made not on morals, cause as loinburger has so keenly pointed out is that morals are relative to your upbringing, religion, culture, etc.
...
Thats extreme and would never happen probably, but the principle behind it is how I define ethics and the 'moral absolute' of society.

That works when you're absolutely certain that all of your society's laws are moral, but that isn't always the case. A good example of this are the Jim Crow laws in the South. The Civil Rights movement was primarily responsible for retracting these unjust laws, but in the process it somewhat destabilized society (in the form of protests and such). Would this therefore mean that the Civil Rights movement was unethical? If not, then how would you reconcile it with the cultural relativism you described?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by loinburger


Says the guy who wants to torture people.



What do you base your morality off of, nationalist? Carrots and sticks? "If I don't kill people then God will give me a carrot, but if I kill people then God will hit me with a stick" type of deal? That a pretty pathetic way to decide right from wrong.

Name a moral absolute for me, since you're so keen on them. Obviously "Don't torture people" isn't one of them, just as "Don't kill without just cause" isn't one either (unless you're of the mind that "Because he makes me mad!" is a just cause for killing somebody, of course).

Personally, I think that being an athiest is an easy out. You can't prove that there is a God. Besides, most religions make you do things that people don't want to do. They make you say that others are wrong. Mind you, I don't agree with mindless Dogma spouters. Relgion needs to be something that you contemplate. I am a Christian/Deist. I value the contributions that Christianity has made to western civilization, and respect its traditions and contribuitions to the rule of law.

I'm no bible thumper. I don't care what your personal religion is. I try my damndest not to use my religion in arguments, because of the very nature of religion and spirituality. You can't prove any of it. It is intangible. However, I do have a problem with those who believe in no higher force or power. The reason is this. Those people do not have to believe that right and wrong exist. Every action is of the same value. Murdering a drifter or feeding a starving man are equivilant. Why should there be any difference. I don't trust athiests completely, because there is nothing that reinforces their convinctions, no order behind them that strengthens them. Why shouldn't they lie, cheat, or steal? Even if they think that these things are wrong, do they truly believe them? Why are they wrong? People who are actually religious, not merely posing as religious, are stopped by consideration of right and wrong. A civilization without religion is doomed to destruction. When no one believes that there is right and wrong, chaos reigns. Why control their urges when there is no punishment for running wild? We need people to believe that a higher power gives us right and wrong. Morality is therby reinforced. After that, the so called "carrot and stick" method evolves into something much more rewarding. It becomes an ingrained morality, something people do because it is the right thing to do, not because they want a reward. It is only then when you get truly religious people.

If you athiests point to this and say "I feel this way already! I don't need a God", then I suggest you step back and examine where these feelings come from. Are they nothing but superflous, selfrightous mirages that disappear when expediencey requires them, or are they truly heartfelt? If they are truly heartfelt, then I don't think that you are truly an athiest.

You ask of my moral absolutes. I don't know where you get that I don't believe in "no killing without just cause." I am referring to executing people gulity of raping and murdering children, not shooting somebody because they made me mad. This is merely an ad hominem. I don't think that we can kill people without just cause. That is where I have a problem with CP. If there is a doubt that a person committed the crime, then there should be no execution. If he did commit that crime, and there is proof, then the person should be executed. I think that the torturer should be tortured. It may have some "eye for an eye" to it, but why is that wrong? It isn't. It is justice. Athiests, why is killing an innocent person wrong?

Torture isn't universally wrong. It can be used when it can save the lives of innocents. If we had captured Moussai (sp?) before Sept. 11th, and had known that there was some kind of plot amiss, then I believe torture should have been used to find this out and protect ourselves.

Another absolute is no sex with children. I believe child abuse is sick. It destroys children's lives more than we can ever know. There is no case in which sex with a child is justifiable.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by nationalist
Personally, I think that being an athiest is an easy out. You can't prove that there is a God. Besides, most religions make you do things that people don't want to do. They make you say that others are wrong.

I don't understand how the last three sentences justify or explain the first sentence in this statement.

However, I do have a problem with those who believe in no higher force or power. The reason is this. Those people do not have to believe that right and wrong exist.

Somebody who believes in a higher power doesn't necessarily have to believe that right and wrong exist, either. Furthermore, somebody who believes in a higher power might believe that right and wrong exist, but they might have completely irrational ideas about what is right and what is wrong; for example, somebody who says "Unjustified killing is wrong because God says so" can just as easily say "Unjustified killing is acceptable because God says so," with no substantive difference between the two rationales.

Murdering a drifter or feeding a starving man are equivilant. Why should there be any difference.

Oh, come on. Basic consistency dictates that murdering a drifter is wicked and that feeding a starving man is righteous, except perhaps for the infinitesmally small portion of the human race that enjoys being murdered and/or starved.

I don't trust athiests completely, because there is nothing that reinforces their convinctions, no order behind them that strengthens them.

Consistency/rationality and societal norms provide tangible reinforcements to atheists' convictions, as opposed to completely irrational beliefs like "[Insert action here] is wrong because [Insert deity/force/pantheon here] says so" which are based on beings or forces that, as you admit, can't even be proven to exist.

Why shouldn't they lie, cheat, or steal? Even if they think that these things are wrong, do they truly believe them? Why are they wrong?

Again, basic consistency and cultural relativism provide the rationales.

People who are actually religious, not merely posing as religious, are stopped by consideration of right and wrong.

Perhaps, but if they're "actually religious" to the point that their entire system of morality is derived from forces that might not even exist, then their considerations of right and wrong are completely irrational.

After that, the so called "carrot and stick" method evolves into something much more rewarding.

I'm assuming you mean that "carrots and sticks" evolves to "cream pies and crucifixions"...

It becomes an ingrained morality

Ah, my assumption is incorrect--you mean that "carrots and sticks" evolves to "indoctrinations and taboos." I prefer cream pies, but whatever floats your boat.

If you athiests point to this and say "I feel this way already! I don't need a God", then I suggest you step back and examine where these feelings come from.

Alright, let me get introspective for a moment... Yup, the feelings still come from basic considerations of consistency. Good to know that nothing's changed in the past day or two...

If they are truly heartfelt, then I don't think that you are truly an athiest.

If your definition of an "atheist" is not "somebody who doesn't believe in a god or higher power," then sure, I might not be an atheist.

You ask of my moral absolutes. I don't know where you get that I don't believe in "no killing without just cause." I am referring to executing people gulity of raping and murdering children, not shooting somebody because they made me mad. This is merely an ad hominem.

Whoops, I was misled by my belief that revenge doesn't constitute a just cause since it is self-serving in the extreme.

I think that the torturer should be tortured. It may have some "eye for an eye" to it, but why is that wrong? It isn't. It is justice.

It's not justice, it's revenge. You can't interchange the two.

Athiests, why is killing an innocent person wrong?

I've given an answer to this above. Now, you tell me, why is killing an innocent person wrong?

Torture isn't universally wrong. It can be used when it can save the lives of innocents.

You previously haven't referred to torture in this capacity, only in the capacity of exacting revenge.

There is no case in which sex with a child is justifiable.

Agreed.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by loinburger


That's fortunate for you, but the point is that your idea of "don't bother reforming the prisons 'cause we can just sue" doesn't work for the working class, which AFAIK makes up the bulk of the prison population.



That works when you're absolutely certain that all of your society's laws are moral, but that isn't always the case. A good example of this are the Jim Crow laws in the South. The Civil Rights movement was primarily responsible for retracting these unjust laws, but in the process it somewhat destabilized society (in the form of protests and such). Would this therefore mean that the Civil Rights movement was unethical? If not, then how would you reconcile it with the cultural relativism you described?

First off, where did you get that I said dont bother reforming the prisons? I've been preaching for half this thread on why there needs to be reform to make prison tougher and to isolate differnet types of fellons so they dont go sharing their ideas like a bg forum.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying in my discussion on ethics. I was basically saying that you cant base laws on morals because morals are relative. So instead you should make laws to protect society and its inhabitants from harm. The Jim Crow laws, though you would say they are not fair, I would say they hurt those who lived in our society by denying them their rights. The Jim Crow laws then were bad laws because they harmed undeserving members of society merely in order persecute the minority. This only hurts a societies efficiency and therefore are poor laws.
My point is, laws cannot be based on morals, for will you use Christian morals? Will you use Hindu morals? You must base laws on what betters society in that societies general view of betterment. The US' general veiw of betterment is money and technology and other stuff like that.

EDIT: I see what you are saying. Sure the Civil Rights movement caused chaos, but it was for the point of making the society better in the end - the Jim Cro laws were the source of that civil unrest, were they not? I should of been more clear on that. The Jim Crow laws may have kept things stable temporarily, but it was their exsistance that created much of the civil unrest and chaos. By removing them you were only making African-Americans happy and putting an end to the civil unrest and protecting society and civilization from failing. You were just looking at the small picture in that instance, not the big picture.

[Kramerman]

Somebody who believes in a higher power doesn't necessarily have to believe that right and wrong exist, either. Furthermore, somebody who believes in a higher power might believe that right and wrong exist, but they might have completely irrational ideas about what is right and what is wrong; for example, somebody who says "Unjustified killing is wrong because God says so" can just as easily say "Unjustified killing is acceptable because God says so," with no substantive difference between the two rationales.

This is because good and bad are relative terms. Osama bin Laden says I am evil and he thinks himself the holiest man in the world for killing 3000 of me.
Conversely, I think he is bad for that very reason and that I am good, even though my country is responsible for the deaths of millions (through war, almost every modern industrial nation is responsible for millions of deaths one way or another).

Same thing could be said for Palestinians and Israelis. Both wold say they ar good and the other evil.
Do you think Timothy Mcvay thought he was evil for bombing the OC Federal Building? Of course not. Only people who are mentally ill could ever think themselves to be truly evil.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frogger

What I mean is that if the country can afford to go without applying the death penalty in desertion cases, it should do so.

If we're fighting a 21st century version of WWI, say, then I see the necessity. If it's a relative cakewalk like all military confrontations NATO countries have been involved in in the last 30 years, then I don't.

The U.S. hasn't executed someone for desertion since WWII, so I don't think it's overused. I do think that it may serve as a deterrent to keep people from bugging out rather than taking a reasonable risk to help the larger group escape a bad situation. There were plenty of opportunities in Vietnam and Korea for cowardice, but a reluctance nonetheless to hand out the ultimate penalty. Fortunately the professionalization of the U.S. Army has kept cowardice to a minimum in recent years, even in tough spots like Somalia.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kramerman
First off, where did you get that I said dont bother reforming the prisons?

Well, first you say "Prisons are too cushy because prisoners get fed and housed blah blah." Then, when somebody (Che I think) says "Prisons actually aren't very cushy, unless you consider being under constant threat of assault, rape, and murder to be 'cushy,'" to which you replied "Oh, well, if I get assaulted, raped, or murdered, then I can just hire a lawyer." Since you used "I can get a lawyer" to dismiss the argument that prisons aren't cushy, one would assume that you have likewise dismissed the argument that prisons need to be reformed in order to become less hellish.

Also, when you say

If that ever happens - which it probably wont because people who are upset about the death penalty will be the ones who will be crying about how its too cruel. ITS FRIGGIN PRISON edit: for murderers! ITS SUPPOSED TO BE CRUEL. ITS WHERE CRUEL PEOPLE GO. Oh well...

you demonstrate once again that you don't consider the constant threat of assault, rape, and murder to be a problem that needs to be reformed. Finally, when you say

Reform!? If someone could murder someone with the knowledge that they could be 'reformed' and put back in the streets, they might do so.

then you're summarily dismissing rehabilitation from the list of possible prison reforms.

So, given that you think that prisons need to be made even more hellish (since the constant threat of assault, rape, and murder in prison is too cushy), and given that you don't think that prisons ought to be reformed in order to place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, it's pretty easy to see where I drew the conclusion that you don't care at all about prison reform.

The Jim Crow laws, though you would say they are not fair, I would say they hurt those who lived in our society by denying them their rights.

What rights are you referring to? Where did they get these rights if society wasn't giving them said rights?

You must base laws on what betters society in that societies general view of betterment.

So, you'd say that slavery was justified/right/lawful/whatever since the majority of people two or three hundred years ago thought that slavery was fine and dandy? By the same token, was it fine for the Nazis to kill the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc. because German society at the time generally thought that these things were find and dandy?

This is because good and bad are relative terms.

They're only relative to a small extent, but for the most part they're fairly objective. You can't just arbitrarily redefine them or you run the risk of misapplying them.

[FlameFlash]

Kramerman mentioned this...
I'll name the m,oral absolutes for you. Bear in mind that am an athiest and have been one for many years. Laws are made not on morals, cause as loinburger has so keenly pointed out is that morals are relative to your upbringing, religion, culture, etc. One thing that all Amricans share in common howver is our society in which we live. Therefore, we can, and do make laws based on what is needed to protect society - thanks to the wisdom of our forfathers to seperate church and state.

And who is to say that ALL American laws are "just" and "moral" in the world's eyes? Sounds like you're going for cultural relativism here... in which each culture, while in their own culture, is "right" and "just" and must respect the actions of other cultures.

But once a country such as the US gets big enough they start enforcing their cultural relativism on other countries.

The cultural relativism of the world (thinking of all the countries that have the DP vs those that don't) would be that the DP is wrong under those arguements.

loinburger pointed this out...
That's fortunate for you, but the point is that your idea of "don't bother reforming the prisons 'cause we can just sue" doesn't work for the working class, which AFAIK makes up the bulk of the prison population.

I thought that it was the under-working class for the most part in prisons... I mean, take a look at even a game like SimCity 4. It may be in the planning stages, but they've tried to properly figure out what causes crime: poor, uneducated, underpaid, untrained people that need some way to provide for their families or else be sucked into the criminal underworld.

Certainly "high-class" people also commit horrible crimes, but for the most part, unfortunately, it's the under-working class (read poor) that commit the crimes.

nationalist thought of this...
Personally, I think that being an athiest is an easy out. You can't prove that there is a God. Besides, most religions make you do things that people don't want to do. They make you say that others are wrong. Mind you, I don't agree with mindless Dogma spouters. Relgion needs to be something that you contemplate. I am a Christian/Deist. I value the contributions that Christianity has made to western civilization, and respect its traditions and contribuitions to the rule of law.

Where in the world does being athiest come into play!? We're discussing for/against the DP, if you really want to attack this issue, make another thread but you can argue against/for the DP without even bringing morals into it: logistics.

If we could solve the problem of poor people, we'd stop, statistically, most crimes from even being committed.

If we rebuilt the family ethic of the 1950s we'd see, statistically, most gang/youth related crimes drop. (No, I'm not saying women should not work... men are just as capable to stay home with the kids and be a family value anchor.)

loinburger relieved me here...
Again, basic consistency and cultural relativism provide the rationales.

Finally! At least somebody will understand what I'm talking about when I mention relativist theories vs. universalist ones. *sighs* Why is it we're the minority on at least having a minor grasp of them? (I'm by no means a philosophy master.)

[quote]loinburger's insights continue...
Whoops, I was misled by my belief that revenge doesn't constitute a just cause since it is self-serving in the extreme.

It's not justice, it's revenge. You can't interchange the two. [/quote

*applause*

Kramerman mentioned this...
This is because good and bad are relative terms. Osama bin Laden says I am evil and he thinks himself the holiest man in the world for killing 3000 of me.

That would be cultural relativism at work again...

[nationalist]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by loinburger

Somebody who believes in a higher power doesn't necessarily have to believe that right and wrong exist, either. Furthermore, somebody who believes in a higher power might believe that right and wrong exist, but they might have completely irrational ideas about what is right and what is wrong; for example, somebody who says "Unjustified killing is wrong because God says so" can just as easily say "Unjustified killing is acceptable because God says so," with no substantive difference between the two rationales.

Oh, come on. Basic consistency dictates that murdering a drifter is wicked and that feeding a starving man is righteous, except perhaps for the infinitesmally small portion of the human race that enjoys being murdered and/or starved.

You answered your own question. Consistancy provides the substantive difference. We seem to have an innate feeling that random murder is wrong. The question is, why do we have that feeling? What makes random killing wrong? I maintain that it is the belief in a higher power, even if that power doesn't exist, that has made the determination that that kiling is wrong. Without a higher power there is no real reason why doing one thing is better than doing something else. There is no real basis for that consistancy. The consistancy has developed through the years inside of a religious culture.

Consistency/rationality and societal norms provide tangible reinforcements to atheists' convictions, as opposed to completely irrational beliefs like "[Insert action here] is wrong because [Insert deity/force/pantheon here] says so" which are based on beings or forces that, as you admit, can't even be proven to exist.

I don't know if it is more irrational to believe that a higher power created the universe or to believe that it just created itself out of nothing. Both seem to be equally hard to prove. Mind you, I am not a strict creationist. I don't believe in the Garden of Eden. I believe that evolution has worked. However, I think that there is a higher power behind it all. It seems too complex to me to just have happened. I believe that the big bang was started by God. I can't prove it, but athiests don't have the evidence to disprove it either. I'm not prepared to say that we understand enough about the universe to simply say that there is no God and this is how everything happened. Neither of us can prove that our way is the truth.

Again, basic consistency and cultural relativism provide the rationales.

Moral consistancy and cultural relativism are, by nature, the result of our particular culture. Our societal sense of right and wrong has developed over thousands of years. Much of that development has been in concordance with or in reaction to church doctrine. Yes, consistancy and relativism are involved in the judgement of actions. However, our very judgement has evovled in a religious culture. Thousands of years of history has gone in to our precepts of right and wrong. Even now, our legal system is based on the 10 Commandments. Much like consistancy, our cultural relativism had to have developed out of the actions of members of that society. A culture's moral relativism and its legal system are closely related; after all both are measures of right and wrong. Our culture's sense of right and wrong has developed through religion, much like our legal systems have evolved from religious laws. What you consider right and wrong, actions that you consider to have been reinforced through societal norms, have been backed by a society that has its notion of right and wrong based on religion.

Perhaps, but if they're "actually religious" to the point that their entire system of morality is derived from forces that might not even exist, then their considerations of right and wrong are completely rrational.

The basis of right and wrong is the idea that there are consequences to one's actions. Morality is based on deciding what is right or wrong. It is the belief that there is a God that can enforce the consequences that has spurred people into deciding right and wrong. The society that has grown around these beliefs reinforces the system of morality that has developed. The societal norms and cultural relativism that has developed is a direct response to this original belief in God. Whether God actually exists or not doesn't matter all that much. It is the belief that he does that has spawned the morality. I don't believe in God because I need somebody to tell me what to do. I have already explained why I can't rule out the existance of God.

Ah, my assumption is incorrect--you mean that "carrots and sticks" evolves to "indoctrinations and taboos." I prefer cream pies, but whatever floats your boat.

It is called socialization. Indocrinations and taboos are just your way of labeling what a society decides is right and wrong. They both fit in your theory of social norms and cultural relativism. Our society is based on those systems of indoctrinations and taboos

Whoops, I was misled by my belief that revenge doesn't constitute a just cause since it is self-serving in the extreme.
It's not justice, it's revenge. You can't interchange the two.

Revenge is a type of justice. Crimes that deprive an innocent of his life should be paid for by revenge. It is the only way that a murderer can be punished for his crime. The worse crime that a man can commit is taking the life from an innocent. Everyone has the right to live and multiply; that is the priviledge of life. When a person takes that life for an invalid reason, when he deprives an innocent person of his right to live, then his right has been revoked. Anything other than that and the murderer has not truly been punished. You wouldn't rape a rapist to punish him for a crime. Rape, even though it is horrible, does not deprive someone of their life.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by nationalist
We seem to have an innate feeling that random murder is wrong. The question is, why do we have that feeling? What makes random killing wrong? I maintain that it is the belief in a higher power, even if that power doesn't exist, that has made the determination that that kiling is wrong.

It is very difficult for us to tell what is innate in human behavior and what is learned behavior. However, anyone who stops to think about why a society might frown upon random murder (which you clearly have not done) can come up with a much better reason that a mere fear of devine retribution. Murder, and not just random murder (which is the rarest kind of all), from an individual stand point because exceedingly few individuals want to be murdered.

From an individual standpoint, a prohibition against murder is a matter of self-defense. We agree not to murder each other so that we in turn will not be murdered. Also, we agree to help others not be murdered so that they in turn will help us not to be murdered.

People, however, are not merely individuals, they are members of a social group. When a member of a society is removed by murder, that society is harmed. That person can no longer contribute, engage in the interpersonal relationships, etc. So we have a prohibition against murder also because we do not wish to see our society diminished by letting its members be murdered.

I find both of these matieralist reasons (i.e., atheist) for opposing murder far more solid than, "my invisible friend told me murder was wrong." Invisibile friends have an odd habit of justifying or prohibiting whatever the real person thinks should be justified or prohibited (provding the person isn't suffering from psychotic delusions).

The latter reason also extends to my political opposition to the death penalty. By executing someone, we destroy interpersonal bonds that include that person. The convicts family and friends did nothing to deserve having those bonds be broken. They did nothing to deserve the emotional torture that comes with having a loved one executed. Furthermore, by executing people, we remove the possibility that that person might be able to contribute to society.

Once a murderer is safely behind bars and no longer a threat to society, they can actually become semi-productive. There are murderers who become artists, writers, musicians behind bars. They contribute to our society's enrichment, our own enrichment.

Now to backtrack a little bit. nationalist, you have a damned ugly habit of putting words in other people's mouths. You constantly assume what people think and post it, frequently it is far from the truth. When you do this verbally, it's called slander. When you do it in print, it's called libel. Neither are protected forms of speech; not here, and not in society at large.

If you want to argue with me, stick to what I actually write and stop making up what you think I think. Next time, I'll be complaning to the Mods about it.

Next, your rush to assume what I thought led you to completely misinterpret what I actually did say. At no point have I written that people not directly affected by a murder should not be outraged. What I said was, only those directly affected have a right to want to actually torture someone themselves. Thinking that someone ought to be tortured and saying that they would be willing to do the actual torture themselves are two very different things. Someone who actually wants to torture another human being is sick. But I can understand that sickness in someone who is emense emotional distress caused by someone raping and murdering their own child. I cannot excuse it for a complete stranger. If you personally have the capacity to torture someone for any reason, then you are a dangerous person, and society needs to be protected from you.

It was pretty simple, actually. It took a lot of assumption and idiocy on your part to conflate it into its opposite.

[Kramerman]

then you're summarily dismissing rehabilitation from the list of possible prison reforms.

I am not dissmissing rehibilitation. Please stop misinterpreting what I say and trying to make everything I say look bad. In that statement I was merely saying that rehiblitaion in prison is not a deterant for murderers, unlike the death penalty, wich is a major deterent for murderers. I was in no way suggesting that rehibilitation in prisons should not be considered for other inmates, or for even murderers who get life in prison. Reread that statement with an open mind, instead of a apiteful one so you can support your frivolous arguements, and you will see what I said.

So, given that you think that prisons need to be made even more hellish (since the constant threat of assault, rape, and murder in prison is too cushy), and given that you don't think that prisons ought to be reformed in order to place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, it's pretty easy to see where I drew the conclusion that you don't care at all about prison reform.

Yes... hmmm... I think someone watches too many movies. I dunno why it is so hard for you to believe that the US prison system is not hard on criminals at all, and barely serves as a deterant of crime. Assults happen, of course, but fights happen everywhere, Ive been in a couple myself even. Rape happens, but believ it or not, IIRC, most prisoners that wish to express their sexual desire through homosexuality, usually find a willing partner. If one were to be raped and guards were to do nothing about it, well thats sad, but that is hardly happens to all in prison and it is definately not a dterant to crime. Murder is quite rare. It definately happens, but almost never is it random. Instead it is between two fueding ganf members and such, who should know their death is a possibility that comes with the territory with being affiliated with a gang. Why you think hard labor would be HELLISH is beyond me. It would definately not be fun, but prison shouldnt be fun, but punishment and deterant to crime.

I gotta go now. But when I return I will finish reading your p[ost and reply.

[nationalist]

Finally, a response from you that isn't a complete ad hominem!

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is very difficult for us to tell what is innate in human behavior and what is learned behavior. However, anyone who stops to think about why a society might frown upon random murder (which you clearly have not done) can come up with a much better reason that a mere fear of devine retribution. Murder, and not just random murder (which is the rarest kind of all), from an individual stand point because exceedingly few individuals want to be murdered.

From an individual standpoint, a prohibition against murder is a matter of self-defense. We agree not to murder each other so that we in turn will not be murdered. Also, we agree to help others not be murdered so that they in turn will help us not to be murdered.

People, however, are not merely individuals, they are members of a social group. When a member of a society is removed by murder, that society is harmed. That person can no longer contribute, engage in the interpersonal relationships, etc. So we have a prohibition against murder also because we do not wish to see our society diminished by letting its members be murdered.

The self defense theory is more realist to me than the social network theory. Do you think that all of morality derives simply from the "I won't do it to them because I don't want them to do it to me" situation? This type of morality seems very easy to circumvent. How easily does it evolve into "I'm going to do it to them before they can do it to me" situation? There is no backbone to it , no ultimate authority that one can depend on when one faces a dilemma. I think that the idea is fairly sound, but it still stands on the foundation of religion. Even if the God doesn't actually exist, the belief that the God exists gives people more certainty, makes them think twice about violating their moral code when they face a problem. It is more valuable to a society than an implied social contract, it gives more of a face to the laws. People understand punishment better, and they set up a legal system that reflects this better understanding.

The latter reason also extends to my political opposition to the death penalty. By executing someone, we destroy interpersonal bonds that include that person. The convicts family and friends did nothing to deserve having those bonds be broken. They did nothing to deserve the emotional torture that comes with having a loved one executed. Furthermore, by executing people, we remove the possibility that that person might be able to contribute to society.

I don't buy this argument at all. Murderers step out of society when they decide to kill. They have willingly cut their social bonds by doing something that is so unacceptable to society as a whole. This person has already disrupted his own social network, as well as the social bonds of his victim. He has no more legitimate connection to society. He has lost his right to be a part of the society.

Once a murderer is safely behind bars and no longer a threat to society, they can actually become semi-productive. There are murderers who become artists, writers, musicians behind bars. They contribute to our society's enrichment, our own enrichment.

He has forfeited his right to create by taking away his victim's right to create. Any enrichment that he has contributed to his society is negated by the lost creative potential of the victim. If he wanted to be an artist, he shouldn't have murdered the 5 year old girl. He gets no second chance. His victim doesn't get one.

Now we get to the good stuuf:

Now to backtrack a little bit. nationalist, you have a damned ugly habit of putting words in other people's mouths.

I have the damned ugly habit of doing just what everyone else does. PH was putting words in your mouth.Loinburger was doing it to everyone. PH was civil about it, at least.

You have the damned ugly habit of writing one thing, then become highly offended 3 posts later claiming that you mean something else. Maybe I misinterpret you, but you also misinterpret me to a high degree.

You constantly assume what people think and post it, frequently it is far from the truth.

I base my assumptions of of what people post. Sometimes I don't have the time to be as nuanced as I could be if we were actually speaking. Othertimes I purposefully take things that people write on here to the extreme, just because they said something that irked me or appeared to me to be solely an ad hominem. Loinburger appears to do the same thing. He put words in my mouth, assuming that I thought that you were pro-murder or something silly like that. You do the same thing. Remember, YOU started this with an ad hominem, one that particularly irritated me.

When you do this verbally, it's called slander. When you do it in print, it's called libel. Neither are protected forms of speech; not here, and not in society at large.

... thanks...

If you want to argue with me, stick to what I actually write and stop making up what you think I think.

If you want to argue with me, then YOU should start off in a manner of discussion like you did in the first half of this post. Anything else will just result in a flame war.

Next time, I'll be complaning to the Mods about it.

Go ahead. I don't really care.

Next, your rush to assume what I thought led you to completely misinterpret what I actually did say. At no point have I written that people not directly affected by a murder should not be outraged.
What I said was, only those directly affected have a right to want to actually torture someone themselves.

I understand what you are saying. But you started out with an ad hominem, so I figured that you could use some ad hominems yourself. I don't really care what you think about the torture thing, but if you are going to harshly attack others for a simple statement, then you deserve to be harshly attacked. Tell the mods. I'll show them your post. Maybe we'll both get banned. I suspect that it would bother you more than me.

It was pretty simple, actually. It took a lot of assumption and idiocy on your part to conflate it into its opposite.

Actually, it took an ad hominem from you. I'd be willing to debate with you, but if you start out on the offensive I'm not going to take you seriously. You can question my intelligence all you want. You don't know me, making your insults meaningless. I know what I have accomplished, and I know what I am capable of. I certainly don't need your approval. I question your intelligence when I read your opinions, but that is what ideological enemies do. I doubt that we will ever see eye to eye. It doesn't really matter to me.

[Dinner]

I remember when this thread was a nice, calm, and rational debate about whither capital punishment was effective & justified. How did it become such a personal slugging match?