by ignored_one 217 Replies latest social current
Off topic but I would not let this slight go unanswered.
Trauma,
China is not a dictatorship. While the CP is the power, the entire economic system has turned to entrepreneurship ie., capitalism. Every political scientist and economist will tell you that China is the country to watch for the advantages of global economy which can only thrive w/in a liberal democracy.
Panda
E-man said:
:: On the one hand we have a government that wants to execute murderers; on the other we have a government that wants to kill people for stealing land. Which is the worse crime? Murder or stealing land?
:: Let's see a substantive response, please.
: The difference is one of pre-meditation.
Pre-meditation has nothing to do with this issue because both actions are pre-meditated. When Britain went to the Falklands to defend its land rights, that was certainly pre-meditated in exactly the same way that an execution is. In both cases, preparations are made well in advance of the final action.
You still failed to answer my most pertinent point:
Which is the worse crime? Murder or stealing land?
: Firstly, we have a government that wants to execute murderers under a system known as capital punishment. So the government is now judge and executioner.
Right. That has always been a function of government.
But I take issue with your statement about a government wanting to execute people. Hardly any government wants to do that, any more than any want to go to war. Note that I'm not talking about rogue governments run by thugs such as the Nazis -- there are always exceptions.
: Then we have a government that does not want to kill people, what it wants to do is to defend it's own land against an invader. The killing comes when the invader will not withdraw. The invader has the choice of surrendering and preserving life, the executee has no such choice. The invader is not being punished, the condemned person is being punished.
This is a very poor argument, because it substitutes euphemisms for straight words. You've committed several fallacies in doing this. I took the following descriptions from one of zillions of websites that discuss fallacious arguments: http://www.liberty.k12.mo.us/hs/WB/wh_caf.htm
The "Either/Or" fallacy ignores the possibility of alternative solutions or choices.
An alternative 'solution' you ignored is one that I already alluded to: in the Falklands Britain could simply have 'let the matter rest' (I love those JW phrases). No one forced Britain to go in and "defend" itself. I don't remember that any Falkland Islanders were killed in the Argentinian takeover, but even some were, what was accomplished by killing hundreds of Argentinians to get back some crummy pieces of land?
The "Suppressed Evidence" fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.
You failed to comment about the fact that the concept of a country's defending " it's own land against an invader" often amounts to defending land claims. This is certainly the bulk of what happened in the Falklands. Using euphemisms such as "defending national sovereignty" changes nothing.
The "Straw Man" fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it.
As above. Plus the fact that, whether or not you want to call killing invaders 'punishing' them (I don't know how killing them doesn't amount to punishing them), both the invaders (who quite possibly could also be "murderers" by virtue of killing innocent civilians) and the executed murderer are both killed. Calling killing invaders "defending our country" while killing a convicted murderer "punishment" is just an exercise in semantics, and certainly a straw man.
The "Hasty Generalization" fallacy occurs when there is a likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group.
You committed this fallacy by failing to give all relevant alternatives, but discussing only two: a government that wants to kill murderers, and a government that does not want to kill murderers but wants to kill people who steal land. A third alternative is a government that wants to kill murderers and people who steal its land.
Abaddon said:
:: E-man, America may be killing some of its most onerous citizens, but it isn't murdering them. Murder is illegal killing, but under certain circumstances all countries will legally kill people. "Legally", of course, meaning according to their own laws.
:: I suspect that most Brits had no problem with the U.K. murdering Argentinian citizens in the Malvinas some years ago (see how easy it is to use loaded language to prejudice an argument?).
:As we’re playing semantics Alan,
Yes, I'm well aware of how semantics can be used to prejudice an argument or piss off a reader. That's why I said "murdering Argentinian citizens" rather than "killing" them or "defending British soil", and used "Malvinas" rather than "Falklands".
: I’d point out that it is an absolute statistical certainty that some executions are carried out on innocent people, and a fact that some have been executed for crimes they did not commit.
You're absolutely right. However, I already commented on this:
"I'm also a bit uncomfortable with some aspects of capital punishment, particularly because of the way our so-called justice system often makes mistakes -- but that's more a problem with how law enforcement people do their jobs, and the proper gathering of evidence, than with the notion of captial punishment itself."
: As this is the case, Englishman is quite right; the USA does legally murder their own citizens.
No. Making a mistake in this is not murder. It's "making a mistake". The law generally takes account of such mistakes when individual citizens make them. I believe the correct term is "manslaughter", and people convicted of this usually get much lighter punishment than premeditated murderers. Perhaps if officials who screw up in such cases got severely punished -- perhaps with the same punishment meted out to the one wrongly convicted -- when they deliberately falsify evidence, or do a shoddy job, this problem would get better.
: Your Falkland Islands (that’s what the people who live their call it)
See above.
: example is not up to your normal standard too;
I have already demonstrated to E-man that it is. But like him, you failed to deal with the real issues that I brought up, so I would have to say that your comments here are not up to your usual standards.
: 1/ John Doe doesn’t kill anyone, but is arrested and eventually executed for killing someone. He has committed no crime at any point, and it is quite possible that no crime was committed by police, attorneys, jury and judiciary in the process that results in his death.
Mistakes in "justice" are made all the time. That says nothing about the appropriateness of a particular punishment. The better fix for this problem is for government agents to do their best not to make mistakes, but not necessarily to lessen a punishment. Taken to its logical conclusion, why not eliminate all punishments -- 'just in case'? I mean, how rotten is it for an innocent accused man to rot in prison his whole life? Is that significantly less rotten than for him to be wrongly executed? Please carefully explain the difference. Note that I already know about people having their convictions reversed; I'm talking about those who are wrongly convicted but never do.
: 2/ Juan Doe gets drafted and used as a soldier in an invasion, and ends up on the wrong end of a round of 5.56mm. Whilst he is not guilty of any crime (other than that of stupidity – draft troops versus professional soldiers is grounds enough for any man to surrender on sighting the enemy), the invasion of the Falklands was a breach of international law and the resultant military action took place with UN approval.
As if UN approval makes everything all right. I think not.
But once again you're missing the main point: once the invasion was complete, taking back the islands resulted only in senseless killing.
Ah, but the killing was not senseless, you'll say! It let Britain take it's land back!
Euphemistically, Britain merely defended its soil and its national sovereignty -- and all with UN approval! Wow, Britain sure had the moral high ground!
: As an accomplice to this crime, although personally innocent, he would have been shot whilst carrying out a crime.
But according to you, even the crime of murder should not be punished with death. You even said at the beginning of your post, which E-man gave you high-fives for:
"If killing is wrong, killing is wrong; the minute you move away from this simple logic you get into areas where you have to make moral compromises."
Don't you see the double standards here? You claim that killing is wrong, but only in some cicumstances. It's wrong when it's executing a murderer. It's right when it's a country defending its land, its national honor and sovereignty. Can you explain precisely why killing an invading soldier for murdering innocent civilians is right, why why killing that soldier for stealing land is right, but killing murderers in civilian circumstances is wrong?
: Bad example. Although both were in the wrong place at the wrong time, one was invading a peaceful country and running around in combats with a gun. The other was JUST in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"Bad example" is right. To make a good example, you'll have to deal with all of the points I raised above. You could try answering the questions I posed for E-man, including the most pertinent:
Which is the worse crime? Murder or stealing land?
I want to point out here that I'm using the example of the Falkland Islands only to point out what I see as inconsistencies in the positions of most Europeans with respect to killing people for various reasons. I think that Britain was justified in what it did. I also think that, as long as extreme care is exercised, deliberate murderers should be executed.
AlanF
Alan, you're such a nerd! ;-)
~Aztec
deliberate murderers
Deliberate murderers make the 'decision' for capital punishment when they 'choose' to kill, not the government. The government only carries out the pre-determined punishment for the murderer's bad choice .
Merc:
maybe you ought to try reading all of what I wrote and answer to the issues that I raise.
Did that; you have NOT stated in this thread WHY abortion is wrong, and I addressed the issue of paternal rights you raised. All you did in your last post was say you agree with Yeru, and Yeru's argument is a religiously based belief supported by faith, which in itself is not sufficient justification to impose it upon those that don't share it.
Why is abortion wrong? Please don't restate issues I've already covered unless you are rebutting what I have posted.
When I point out that;
Your argument would mean a man could also force a woman to have an abortion to avoid child maintenance, and that a woman could demand her husband have sperm extracted from him if he refused to have children with her.
.. you admit it is true, and then carry on saying a man has a right to his sperm, having admitted that if your, er, 'logic' applied both ways a woman would have the rights I described and a man could force abortion on a woman.
Doesn't this make it clear to you that your desire to enforce actions upon a woman against a woman's will is unworkable? If you have a problem with this, don't have sex, it is very simple. You say men should fight for their rights; you have the right not to have sex, you do not have a right to violate a woman's rights because you regret having sex.
I'm sorry, I really find your attitude offensive and misogynistic; you're just doing what generations of men have done and are treating women like chattel. If you grace them with your holy sperm they have to ask politely what to do with it... what utter rubbish. You cannot 'take back' an orgasm. Live with this fact; you too Obiwan.
AlanF:
I know you know that innocent people are subjected to judicial killing!
8-)
However, I believe that as murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person, if an innocent person is executed, they have been unlawfully killed - even if this is a mistake only discovered after the fact, it's a breach of the laws of the country that this happens. Thus Englishman's usage stands.
Obviously this is semantic fun that we can both keep up all day.
Taken to its logical conclusion, why not eliminate all punishments -- 'just in case'? I mean, how rotten is it for an innocent accused man to rot in prison his whole life? Is that significantly less rotten than for him to be wrongly executed? Please carefully explain the difference. Note that I already know about people having their convictions reversed; I'm talking about those who are wrongly convicted but never do.
If someone is such a danger to society (i.e. someone who did the crime and is liable to reoffend), then life imprisonment makes society safe from that person. They are the author of their own misfortune. If someone's innocence is discovered, the fact THEY STILL HAVE A PULSE will allow some form of meaningful compensation to be made; saying sorry to some bloke's children doesn't quite work in my mind.
This is why imprisonment is significantly less rotton than executions; miscarraiges of justice can be partially compensated for. Now, you might, if wrongfully imprisoned for life, decide that you can't take it; suicide in such a circumstance is an obvious release that you could CHOOSE. If execution were the punishment, there would be no choice, and someone who would want to carry on living even though they were imprisoned unjustly would be denied that choice over outcome. And as some miscarriages of justice have been discovered DECADES after conviction, execution again seems more like a cultural habit than effective policy.
As regards the Falkland Islands, you are ignoring the point that in one case (the innocent man killed for a murder) the person has not even been party to a crime, but is victim of a terminal miscarriage of justice.
In the second example, no matter what the individual responsibility of a soldier is, they are party to a crime under International Law by invading a peaceful country, and it is accepted that lethal force is a legitimate tactic against invasion. It is NOT accepted that accidentally killing innocent people is a legitimate tactic against homicide.
They are also armed and dangerous to enable them to carry out this crime - and as I have absolutely nothing against shooting someone with a gun before they shoot me (if they are in the process of carrying out a serious crime and/or are armed), you cannot use my scruples against cold-blooded murder against me. Your example really, really doesn't work Alan. It's just two events both involving unfortunate death, but there similarity ends.
(Added afterwards)
Obviously I was applying the above to the murder vs. killing of an innocent person by judicial execution, in the wider sense you ask;
Which is the worse crime? Murder or stealing land?
Murder. But as the example you used was theft with lethal force, then defending oneself against lethal force, or coming to the aid of those who could not defend themselves against such, I don;t see what end this differentiation will bring you in this discussion.
Don't you see the double standards here? You claim that killing is wrong, but only in some cicumstances. It's wrong when it's executing a murderer. It's right when it's a country defending its land, its national honor and sovereignty.
No, I hold that the death penalty is wrong as it UNAVOIDABLY ends up in the state executing innocent people. I hold the death penalty is wrong as it is no deterent. I suppose I should add, in addition to the self-defence aspect that Stinky pointed out I neglected, that killing to oppose the use of force to rule, rob, rape is quite alright by me; but only in the heat of the moment, or unavoidable lethal force resulting in death to defend those subject to real threat as discribed above. Is that better? I don't even think you have to wait until violence is directly offered if you have obvious indications you failing to act would allow someone to carry out such an activity in the immediate future.
But all of these above situations are easily seperable from judicial killing, as there is a choice with judicial killing that may not be available in defending oneself or coming to the defence of others. It's in cold blood with plenty of valid alternatives; going back to the Falkland Islands again, there were no valid alternatives other than allowing the invasion force to do as they willed; and if you look at the human rights record of Argentina at the time, you'll see the long term prospects for any British subject in the Falklands who opposed even verbally the invasion were grim.
The important issue for me is that if killing is wrong, unless you are acting in immediate self-defence, or the other circumstances I have rightly been prompted to define clearly. Accidental homocides are obviously in a different catagory.
I really don't see why punishing people involved in the mistake would help the situation, as only occasionally would there be malice in their action; most of the time they'd be taking the fall for a culture's fascination with execution. That's not fair; the country should take responsibility for the unavoidable nature of miscarraige of justice, rather than palm off the responsibility on employees. Part of that responsibility is accepting WILLFULL falsification of evidence or incompetance is BOUND to happen, and foreseeing and preventing negative concequences from such is the COUNTRY'S responsibility
As agreed, any system of judicial killing WILL execute innocent people.
On top of this, the death penalty is no deterant.
So, people can support an ineffective method of punishment that will result in killing innocent people in the name of justice. But I can't respect that opinion, as to me it's a particulary complacent form of barbarism.
It's also massively hypocritical, as people base this on the hope they are never strapped to a gurney and killed for a crime they did not commit. If it did happen to them, they would become opposed to the death penalty in an instant. Thus further reasons not to respect that opinion
The final and most clinching thing is that we seem to avoid having murderers and rapists walking the streets killing willy-nilly in Europe, despite not having a death penalty.
Perhaps a more effectiove way of dealing with the problem in the USA is to look at what penal and social reforms could stop the homicide epidemic.
Of course, this is far more difficult, and far less satisfying than killing people in the name of law. But a nation doing things the right difficult way is a sign iof its maturity, just as taking the easy option that gives people the sensation (but not the actuality) of safety is a sign of its immaturity.
I also think that, as long as extreme care is exercised, deliberate murderers should be executed.
Why? Please show me using (if possible) longitudinal studies in areas with and without the death penalty what positive effect judicial killing has, other than making people FEEL better.
I know 'killing is wrong therefore killing is wrong' is very simplistic; to me the exceptions (self-defence, rape, robbery, premptive action to prevent such actions) are in a different class of killing - the sort most people would do when pushed and not feel bad about after.
When I point out that;
Your argument would mean a man could also force a woman to have an abortion to avoid child maintenance, and that a woman could demand her husband have sperm extracted from him if he refused to have children with her.
.. you admit it is true, and then carry on saying a man has a right to his sperm, having admitted that if your, er, 'logic' applied both ways a woman would have the rights I described and a man could force abortion on a woman.
Doesn't this make it clear to you that your desire to enforce actions upon a woman against a woman's will is unworkable? If you have a problem with this, don't have sex, it is very simple. You say men should fight for their rights; you have the right not to have sex, you do not have a right to violate a woman's rights because you regret having sex.
I'm sorry, I really find your attitude offensive and misogynistic; you're just doing what generations of men have done and are treating women like chattel. If you grace them with your holy sperm they have to ask politely what to do with it... what utter rubbish. You cannot 'take back' an orgasm. Live with this fact; you too Obiwan.
First of all abaddon, don't include me in someone else's reply. If you don't have the courtesy of replying directly to me, then don't!
Second in regards to my post, you're missing the whole point. This whole thread is about abortion. Did I say anything about "mens" or "womens" rights? This is about one thing,the right for the child to live. People is this day and age, have lost perspective on responsibility. If two people, have sex, and a pregnancy occurs...why does the child have to pay?
You have been asking others here for proof with there idea of abortion. Where is yours with regard to abortion being right? You are actually arrogant enough to think there is a right or wrong answer to this? That to me is just plain assumption on your part. All of this come's down to the individuals involved, not some arbitrary rule book that people make up.
Another flaw, you say that a woman should be able to keep a child even if a man decides he would rather her have an abortion. Ok, fine. Does this also mean that since the woman is imposing here will on the situation and decides to have the child, that the man also has a right not to support this child since he does not want it?
Niether party will be "right" in this situation. You have a man on one hand who has rights, and you have a woman on another hand that has rights. You never once said anything about the child's right's. You've said men have the right not to have sex, hello, what about the woman? If a woman were to go against the man wanting the child, then "she" would be violating his rights.This whole thing works two ways. This is where that "sticky" point comes to play, if you really read what I said. I did say I would have something to say about it. I did not say there were any absolutes to this.
As I said, this is about the responsibility the two people have. Niether party can "force" thier will on another. And you say men have been doing this for generations. Guess what, women have as well. So I say again, this will never be solved, each party has thier own idea of rights, with no thought or consequence to the child. As I stated and pointed out the child should not have to pay for peoples indiscretions. Live with that fact.
Another flaw, you say that a woman should be able to keep a child even if a man decides he would rather her have an abortion. Ok, fine. Does this also mean that since the woman is imposing here will on the situation and decides to have the child, that the man also has a right not to support this child since he does not want it?
i've thought about this a lot since it was initially brought up in this thread. i have to admit i do think it's a little unfair. if there were a legal way to opt out of fatherhood within a limited amount of time - say, by the end of the first trimester - would that somewhat appease those of you who feel that men should have a say in a woman's choice to have an abortion or not based on the fact that if she chooses to keep a child that the father doesnt want he will be saddled with at the very least financial responsibility for the child? i'm just curious, and someone may have already brought up this idea, so i apologize if that's the case.
Well Tink, I can't answer your question. I for one am totally against abortion. So for me, if the woman wants the child it's no problem. My issue is, if the woman does not want it. What then? How can both sides assert thier own rights in the situation? The answer is, you can't, there will be a loser, aside from the child.
Which is the worse crime? Murder or stealing land?Obviously, murder is the worse crime.
So now which is the worse crime? Executing a person or fighting against an armed invader?
It's all the question, Mr F. I can see that you're pining for a skirmish with You Know.
Englishman.
I've known a few mothers who made those sacrifices and the babies are doing just fine and they thanked their mothers in heaven for a chance at life.Yeah, and I know people who are happy to be alive because the rubber broke. Does that mean no one should use any form of contraceptive? Afterall, a contraceptive is preventing and sometimes destroying what would otherwise become a human being.
And you support the destruction of human beings? Yiz
