Pickton - Murderer of 49 women ("Was gonna do 1 more - make it an even 50")

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Asher
I see no one can argue with my argument.

Alright, I'll argue with you.

Being a pigfarmer is no grounds for execution. Bacon, Ham, Sausage, Pork Chops, Pork Tenderloin... all delicious. Someone has to take care of the pigs. Therefore, in order to maintain a steady supply of pork in my fridge, pigfarmers must be kept alive.

[Kuciwalker]

Someone has to take care of the pigs.

Robots.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Alright, I'll argue with you.

Being a pigfarmer is no grounds for execution. Bacon, Ham, Sausage, Pork Chops, Pork Tenderloin... all delicious. Someone has to take care of the pigs. Therefore, in order to maintain a steady supply of pork in my fridge, pigfarmers must be kept alive.

I'll compromise with you, because I'm a reasonable guy.

We kill the fugly pig farmers, and keep the sexy ones.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Asher
I'll compromise with you, because I'm a reasonable guy.

We kill the fugly pig farmers, and keep the sexy ones.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I disagree. I think it's that this sort of person has no value.

How can value be a pre-requisite for justified existance?

If someone loses their job, family and lover, and has no-one who cares about them, do they still have value? Do they deserve life?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There's found guilty, and there's no possibility of innocence. The two are not the same.

Death sentences for extreme crimes should have to hold up to the higher standard.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
How can value be a pre-requisite for justified existance?

If someone loses their job, family and lover, and has no-one who cares about them, do they still have value? Do they deserve life?

Yes.

Take that same person and have him be a serial killer too? No.

If someone has no value there's nothing wrong with killing them.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


As you did when you suggested that the utility of killing Saddam outweighed the value of his life.

No, I didn't. In that case both elements (I believe Saddam's life has value and I believe that the utility of killing him outweighs this) are necessary to describe a sensible position.

In your case, the two justifications are sufficient in themselves.

And more specifically I wouldn't have complained about it except for the fact that I find one of them repugnant. The other is simply wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why not? If it would be wrong to execute Pickton, surely it would be wrong to execute anyone else would it not?

No.

[DinoDoc]

Why?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, I didn't. In that case both elements (I believe Saddam's life has value and I believe that the utility of killing him outweighs this) are necessary to describe a sensible position.

I described a value, with rhetoric as negative. We have both found utility in a death sentence that outweighs the value of the life.

We have done the same thing.

In your case, the two justifications are sufficient in themselves.

Sophistry, as both of us are comparing values to come to a conclusion that a death penalty is warranted.

And more specifically I wouldn't have complained about it except for the fact that I find one of them repugnant. The other is simply wrong.

Which is which?

[KrazyHorse]

Because of the greater likelihood that a Saddam imprisoned in Iraq would cause trouble in the future than would a common murderer imprisoned in Canada.

This is both because:

a) Saddam is not a common murderer, and is able to stir up more trouble than a common murderer

b) Iraq's prisons are not secure (both against direct attack and against future political maneuvering)

(b) is sufficient for me to support the Iraqi government's practice of executing serious criminals

[KrazyHorse]

Sophistry, as both of us are comparing values to come to a conclusion that a death penalty is warranted.

No, because in your case the first judgment renders the comparison unnecessary. The death is good in itself.

[KrazyHorse]

Which is which?

Take a wild guess. It should be evident by now.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because of the greater likelihood that a Saddam imprisoned in Iraq would cause trouble in the future than would a common murderer imprisoned in Canada.

This is both because:

a) Saddam is not a common murderer, and is able to stir up more trouble than a common murderer

b) Iraq's prisons are not secure (both against direct attack and against future political maneuvering)

(b) is sufficient for me to support the Iraqi government's practice of executing serious criminals

Could have imprisoned Saddam on Baffin Island, far, far away from Iraq.

Try again.