 |
|
Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. The charging documents identify the children as Brittany Jacks, 17; Tatianna Jacks, 11; N’Kiah Fogle, 6; and Aja Fogle, 5.
Although autopsies are incomplete, the medical examiner’s office reported that there was evidence that Brittany had been stabbed, the charging documents state. There was evidence of binding on the necks of the Tatianna and N’Kiah, and evidence of blunt force injury to the head of Aja and binding on her neck, according to the documents. The three children were dressed in white T-shirts when their bodies were found Wednesday, charging documents state. Brittany’s body was naked but was partially covered by a white T-shirt. An object that appeared to be a steak knife lay nearby, and there was a dried maroon liquid around the body, according to the documents.
There have been several incidents, recently, that have me re-evaluating my views on the death penalty. The man who threw his 4 kids off the bridge 80 ft into the river below, the nut bag who decapitated the girl in South Carolina (who, by the way has already cut a deal for life), and this case. Is there any redemption for people like this?
#61, Three Headed Moran,
I said, if you will bother looking, THE GUILTY ONES.
So who said all the comatose were innocent? How do you know they didn’t do something earlier in their worthless lives? You can’t prove they didn’t, so quit your effen whining. Those old geezers? How do you know that old Maude didn’t take Betty’s teeth? How do you know Zeke wasn’t trying to fool around with Fred’s woman?
Tell us ONE SINGLE REASON THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY VICIOUSLY, INHUMANLY TOOK FROM THEIR VICTIMS – LIFE.
Why? If you don’t understand by this time you never will. But I’ll repeat it. I ‘ m t y p i n g r e a l s l o w j u s t f o r y o u .
If it is wrong for us to kill (excepting for self defense) then it is also wrong for the state to kill. On a moral level, it puts us the same low level you have so loudly put on those who would take a life. Personally, I am better than that. From the sounds of it, you aren’t.
Fire back moran. I got work to do anyway. I will return however.
Gee Mr Catshit, are you morphing into Batshit?
The comatose are “not guilty” as they have not been charged with a capital crime whereas those on death row have been? Seems like a major distinction?
And why go over the same ground in a continuous circle? “If it is wrong to kill” and that is the whole point. Some say it is and then almost universally make exceptions, and other accept those exceptions and recognize “by definition” killing cannot be “always wrong.”
I do like the subject of killing the comatose though. Not because they have done anything wrong–but because they are not contributing to society anymore, in fact, they are a drain. If I am ever in a life-boat scenario, I hope you or OFTLO are my fellow passengers so that you will volunteer your personal meat so that others will not transgress your fine sense of morality.
#63, bobbo,
I do not advocate killing anyone. I asked the question as an extension of an absurd logic. When you start making exceptions to a rule, then you end up with everyone demanding an exception. If you were 89 and someone stole your teeth, you might very well argue the thief “deserves a killen”.
As for using the same argument again? Geeze didn’t you read the part where I was asked to give an example? That, plus the fact that a certain moran has been harping on the same point with his own twisted view for quite some time now.
If I am ever in a life-boat scenario, I hope you or OFTLO are my fellow passengers …
Will you be comatose?
#64–I thought you DID advocate killing in self defense? YOU are the onc making exceptions. I leave it to the group vote as not a question subject to an “absolute rule.”
I recall a relevant story about belief systems and absolute adherence to them. An explorer met a primitive tribe that was vegetarian as they thought all life was sacred and killing was not allowed. The explorer showed them the bugs in their drinking water and explained how silly they were in that they had been killing these life forms for years—-it could not be avoided. The explorer broke camp the next day but came back a few weeks later only to find that the entire tribe had died of thirst. They refused to violate their beliefs just to save themselves. Now if the explorer had been more prescient, like that overturned truck rescue group, he might have shown them how to distill water without killing the bugs, but he thought too little of these good folks.
Where the thinking goes from one’s personal preference to a “morality” is a bit beyond me, especially when such idea is a minority view and even self destructive at that?
Killing anyone at any time is absolutely wrong (for some vague, unspecified mystical reason) except in those cases where it’s not.
Makes wonderful sense.
Notice how Fusamente there keeps avoiding any of the issues?
He cannot answer, among other things, who benefits, and how, (besides the innocents that will be murdered as a result) from not executing guilty murderers.
What good will it do humankind to keep Mr. Pickton alive? If he is executed, he cannot possibly kill any more people. If he is not executed, he may very well do so, as so many others have done.
So – no downside. Society loses nothing.
Upside, society eliminates a genuine threat to the safety of innocent people.
All your phony bluster and bullshit, Fusillero, can’t disguise the fact that you are just pushing PC dogma, ideological humbug that I have demonstrated cannot be rationally justified. You haven’t a leg to stand on. You don’t even attempt to rebut my points, since you know it’s hopeless. Instead you try to create a sideshow and keep the audience’s mind off the fact that you have no other rationalization for banning executions except “I don’t think it’s nice to kill people.” That’s good enough for knee-jerk ideologues, but not good enough for people who actually think instead of spew slogans and propaganda.
#66, Three Ring Circus,
Killing anyone at any time is absolutely wrong (for some vague, unspecified mystical reason) except in those cases where it’s not.
Makes wonderful sense.
Yes, I can see how you love such a morality. Killing is wrong except for when it serves YOUR interest. I find it strange that you have taken this new tact, but then rationality is not always expected of you.
Notice how Fusamente there keeps avoiding any of the issues?
Au contraire Three Empty Heads. I agree with a simple, easy to follow statement that was made earlier. YOU on the other hand have tried to get me to agree with some words you have twisted to mean something else. YOU have created new “issues” several times I don’t care to get involved in due to their repetitive juvenile nature.
He cannot answer, among other things, who benefits, …
Oh, I did answer. Only you don’t like the answer so you prefer to suggest I can’t answer. But, I’ll repeat.
Society benefits by not lowering itself the same level as that of the murderer. To use society’s mechanism’s: laws, police and the courts, to justify the taking of a life is as wrong today as it was during Nazi Germany or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
(If society executes a murderer) Society loses nothing.
Except dignity which maybe you don’t posses.
All your phony bluster and bullshit, Fusillero, can’t disguise the fact that you are just pushing PC dogma, …
You’re correct. I have several PCs around house. We all use WIN XP. No MACs here. Yes, I like the stability of XP. But I don’t rant about it or even get into serious discussions. It is what I use, period.
You don’t even attempt to rebut my points, since you know it’s hopeless.
Shall I repost your incoherent rant in #44 and answer line by line? Or would my response in #47 do. I’m sorry if you can’t understand because you are such a fool.
No, I won’t answer every point you try to make. Simply because you have repeated them or they are so bizarre as to be unanswerable.
Instead you try to create a sideshow and keep the audience’s mind off the fact that you have no other rationalization for banning executions except “I don’t think it’s nice to kill people.”
Sideshow??? Me??? And what the effen hell have you been posting? The three ring main event? Have you bothered to wipe all that spittle off your chin? You have been ranting as the un-medicated fool you are. Go ahead, take a deep breath and read the crap you wrote. You are a fool. Not for what you believe about capital punishment, but for the way you expressed your opinions.
The dunce cap is cutting off blood flow to the vestigial organ you probably think of as a ‘brain.’
“Killing anyone at any time is absolutely wrong (for some vague, unspecified mystical reason) except in those cases where it’s not.
Makes wonderful sense.”
If that doesn’t set off your sarcasm detector (and it apparently didn’t) then you need to take a course in Remedial Humor. I was parodying YOUR – and OFTLO’s – stance.
YOU are the ones saying that ALL killing is wrong EXCEPT when YOU have decided it’s OK…
1. You can’t give any better reason than ‘because I say so.’ Neither of you have offered one word of logically support to that idea. Why is it “wrong”? In what specific way is it “wrong”?
“Because you say it is” ain’t good enough. Hence my crack about ‘some vague, unspecified mystical reason.’ You have yet to come up with one.
2. The sarcasm comes in in the obvious contradiction of your assertion. If it is ALWAYS WRONG then there ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. If there ARE EXCEPTIONS then it is NOT ALWAYS WRONG.
But you offer both mutually contradictory statements as being somehow logically consistent. Bad news, amigo. They’re not. It’s one or the other.
3. And since you have made the exception for self-defense, then if we accept that killing in self-defense is NOT wrong, then an exception exists. If an exception exists, it is therefore NOT ALWAYS WRONG.
If one exception exists, so may another. And that is closely related to the first exception.
If an individual may kill to prevent being killed, then society may also kill to prevent members of that society from being killed.
But the most idiotic thing you have uttered yet is this horseshit about ‘dignity.’
Here’s yet another you can’t possibly refute (that’s IF you even understood enough to know how to refute it):
Convicted murderers, if left alive, often do murder again.
That is to say, the number of innocent victims of convicted murderers who are not executed is greater than zero.
If executed, they NEVER murder again.
That is to say, the number of innocent victims of convicted murderers who ARE executed is ZERO.
Therefore, execution prevents additional murders.
Here’s your bullshit:
“(If society executes a murderer) Society loses nothing.”
Except dignity which maybe you don’t posses [sic].
That means, sonny, that if murderers are not executed, then society suffers more loss of innocent life, but remains “dignified” – but if they are executed, more lives are saved, yet society “loses dignity”.
So, you are clearly saying that society’s “dignity” is worth more than human life is.
This becomes your SECOND exception to your “killing is always wrong” rule.
Murder of innocents is permissible to protect society from “loss of dignity.”
‘”…dignity, which you don’t posses [sic].” That’s ad hom., chum.
“Society benefits by not lowering itself the same level as that of the murderer.”
But it’s NOT “the same level” – that’s what you’re too dense to grasp – or too dishonest to admit. And that is also what I precisely and exactly disproved in my earlier posts. That the act of a murderer is illegal, forbidden, unacceptable and takes the life of an innocent party who has not committed any crime. It is done without society’s approval, and it is prohibited by society. The act of execution is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ACT. Saying “killing is killing” is FALSE. THE MOTIVES BEHIND MURDER AND EXECUTION ARE DIFFERENT. THAT ALONE PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ACT.
ONE ACT IS A CRIME. THE OTHER IS AN ACT OF SOCIETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTLY PUNISHING THAT CRIME. ONE TAKES THE LIFE ON AN UNDESERVING INNOCENT. THE OTHER TAKES THE LIFE OF A GUILTY PERSON WHO DESERVES IT.
THOSE ARE NOT “ON THE SAME LEVEL.” THEY”RE HARDLY IN THE SAME UNIVERSE.
USING THE SAME VAGUE WORD TO MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS IS DISHONEST.
You sorry sap. You can’t even grasp the simple known fact that using the same word to describe completely different things is dishonest. You haven’t got brains enough to understand that if you make the distinction between killing done by an individual and killing done by the state, you are already conceding that they are two different acts. And therefore there are two different names for those two different acts, which are MORE EXACT, MORE PRECISE and therefore MORE HONEST.
You must have flunked high school algebra, since you can’t even understand simple term substitution.
It isn’t “putting words in someone’s mouth” you moron. It’s analyzing those words to determine if they constitute a true statement
This is an operation in relevance logic called an indicative conditional:
IF premise(s) is(are) true THEN conclusion.
First you DEFINE YOUR TERMS.
The word “kill” has MANY MEANINGS. THEREFORE IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO SPECIFY WHICH MEANING YOU ARE USING.
Do you read me, dimwit?
That is how logic works – whether you like it or not.
AND, since the word “kill” is used both in the premise AND the concusion, then BOTH USAGES MUST BE SPECIFIED.
If your term has ONE definition, then it’s simple, actually trivial:
where X=X
IF X IS WRONG
THEN X IS WRONG
Now this is TRUE.
(and we’re not even yet touching on what “wrong” means)
BUT,
where X=(A OR B OR C)
if we say
IF X IS WRONG
THEN X IS WRONG
that may mean ANY OF A NUMBER OF THINGS:
1. IF A IS WRONG THEN A IS WRONG
2. IF A IS WRONG THEN B IS WRONG
3. IF A IS WRONG THEN A OR B IS WRONG
4. IF A IS WRONG THEN C IS WRONG
5. etc…
Since we DO NOT DEFINE WHICH MEANING OF X WE ARE USING IN EACH PLACE, WE CANNOT DETERMINE IF THE STATEMENT
IF X IS WRONG THEN X IS WRONG
IS ACTUALLY TRUE, SINCE THERE ARE MULTIPLE POSSIBLE ANSWERS.
and THAT mean that as long as we aren’t exactly specific as to which of the DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF “KILL” we are using IN EACH PLACE –
because if we simply agree that the same definition is used for both, then it’s obviously true – but we’re CHANGING DEFINITIONS between the PREMISE and the CONCLUSION.
And that means the only forms that apply are:
IF A IS WRONG THEN B IS WRONG
IF A IS WRONG THEN C IS WRONG
IF B IS WRONG THEN A IS WRONG
IF B IS WRONG THEN C IS WRONG
IF C IS WRONG THEN A IS WRONG
IF C IS WRONG THEN B IS WRONG
and NONE OF THESE IS TRUE
Therefore
IF (killing by one kind of party for one motive) IS WRONG
THEN (killing by a different kind of party for a different motive) IS WRONG
is NOT TRUE.
So, to determine if it REALLY IS TRUE that
If killing by an individual is wrong
then killing by the state is wrong
‘killing’ in the premise, and ‘killing’ in the conclusion have to be broken down to see if they refer to the same thing. If they do NOT refer to the same thing – AND THEY DO NOT – then it is idiotic to believe such a statement. It isn’t logical. It’s meaningless, in fact.
You fucking dimwit. As oversimplified and dumbed-down as I try to make it so you might begin to get some faint glimmer of understanding, It’s still like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a hamster.
#68==3HC–your argument is so mathematically and logically coherent and perfect, it only makes me want to switch sides? But who can argue against perfection; so I must remain silent==except to say the argument against the Death Penalty that I do find reasonable is as the sacrifice society is willing to make to protect the potentially innocent from wrongful execution.
Its not a 100% slam dunk, but at least it is reasonable.
What else rings your bell?
Three Empty Heads,
You seriously should either get another physician or else take what is prescribed. Your writing is showing schizoid tendencies with shades of paranoia and mania.
#72, Three Headed Moran,
But we aren’t discussing genocide, which is a different topic.
Yes you are. You distinctly justified killing by the state as legal and moral. Now, when you don’t like the definition you just made, you want to deny it. How convenient. And dishonest. Or is this another of your twisted memes.
The Three Headed Moran School of Logic
“Duh”, (Three Headed Moran drooling,) “Well, it means what I want it to mean when I want it to mean what I want it to mean. Otherwise it doesn’t mean what I want it to mean because I don’t want it to mean what I wanted it to mean when I wanted it to mean what I wanted it to mean that.” If you know what I mean.
So, bullshit.
RIGHT !!!
It is a simple line and you want to twist and distort it into something else under the guise of “logic” or “algebra”. You can’t even understand the basic, incontrovertible definition of the word “kill”.
Cheezus, what an asshole.
“You distinctly justified killing by the state as legal and moral.”
I did nothing of the kind.
A dictator ordering the mass killing of a group of innocent people on a whim has nothing to do with a jury of 12 citizens rendering a lawful verdict against a criminal in accordance with that society’s law. You constantly tap-dance around the major difference between executions and all these other absurd things you try vainly to equate it with: the person to be executed is guilty of committing a crime that humanity has agreed to be the worst.
Subject of murder = INNOCENT VICTIM – KILLED ILLEGALLY ON AN IRRATIONAL WHIM
Subject of genocide = INNOCENT VICTIM – KILLED ILLEGALLY ON AN IRRATIONAL WHIM
Subject of execution = GUILTY MURDERER – KILLED LEGALLY BY SOCIETY FOR THE WORST VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF CIVILIZATION
You are a real hoot, kiddo. You haven’t the faintest idea of how to think logically, and exactly like the scientifically illiterate morons who dispute evolution, you don’t have to know one speck about it, all you need to know is YOU’RE RIGHT!! Fuck facts and reasoning – what YOU believe is TRUE – because YOU BELIEVE IT!
Yes, a series of rabies shots and daily ECT for a month or so and you’ll be a new Fusoid…
#75–Catshit. In the main, 3HC wins this degate mostly because you won’t address his positions straight on. So, minus points for being a weasel.
My philosophy classes left me with the conclusion that there is no right and wrong==only thinking/attitudes/ and sometimes a group consensus that is a proxy for right and wrong. It is also a short hand for that and for consensus a society reaches on what it is going to do.
You do then have a burden in supporting the notion that something is wrong, when the consensus is that it is right. You don’t address that burden, you only repeat yourself. Try to advance the argument, not just repeat it.
3HC–Even if its true no innocent person has been executed in years, it would still make sense to not have capital punishment in order to assure there would be no unjust executions in the future.
Now to me as right and wrong (usually) only addresses the answer already concluded, the practical analysis is to compare two societies side by side. They are exactly the same on day one, then one has capital punishment and the other does not. See how the develop and what happens. Now, pick which society you want to live in based on those developments.
If you can do that, you are thinking. If you cannot do that, you are a moralist.
#76, bobbo,
#75–Catshit. In the main, 3HC wins this degate mostly because you won’t address his positions straight on.
A straw man argument, bobbo. I am under no obligation to answer Three Empty Heads’ arguments. I only am here to support a specific phrase that killing is wrong. To become sidetracked into bullshit that goes on and on is a fool’s path.
The Three Empty Heads did not answer nor rebut why killing is wrong without forcing the meaning into something it is not.
#75–Catshit==too many posts here to review to guess at what word, phrase or sentence you are referring to. My understanding of 3HC’s position is not so much a rebuttal of your argument, but rather a dissection of its validity standing alone? You may be at cross purposes.
-or-==early on his and my position was most easily stated that if killing was wrong, there could be no exception to it. You make an exception, so it can’t be wrong. We are left only with talking about what the exceptions should be?
Still, you don’t advance your own position other than being dogmatic.
Lets go back to my thought experiement at #76. If capital punishment resulted in fewer innocent people being killed than would life in prison, would you be for or against capital punishment?
#78, bobbo,
If capital punishment resulted in fewer innocent people being killed … .
Against.
Simply because as a free society we don’t take away the rights of the majority, or even a large segment, of the population simply because an individual or a small group have abused those rights. If that were the case then the government could shut down all Universities because there was a violent demonstration on one campus, or shut down all newspapers because a few wrote articles against the government, or jail all Republicans because one took a bribe.
Sometimes we have to put up with someone shooting another so we can all carry a gun. Or someone in the park being loud and obnoxious as they spout their political views. Or a newspaper publishing something we disagree with. Or someone absconding after being given bail.
Now you can argue that I have made an exception because of the “self defense” rule. No. That is a contingency that allows you to break the law. Another contingency would be if you are speeding to get your wife to the hospital to have her baby. Or if a physician operated on you while you were unconscious in order to save your life. Or the police bashing down your door because they saw someone they were chasing run inside.
When the immediacy of the moment requires an action contrary to the law in order to save a life from death or immediate harm, the law allows the extenuating circumstances to weigh in your favor. It does not allow the calculated, planned execution of an action contrary to law.
In this case, a death penalty is a planned action by the state. Yet, if it is wrong for an individual to kill, it is equally wrong for the State to kill. Considering that the State allows it or condones it is not a defense any more than is any other killing carried out by a State under sanction of law.
Nor do I think executing people will save any more innocent lives.
#55 – Now–OFTLO’s immediate recognition of a single exception, the non-listing of defense of others, and the failure to understand the justification/morality/functionality of a “fair and exact” societal imposed death penalty, simply shows a lack of insight.
It shows that I’m not a pedantic ninny.
You know… I really should revisit old threads from time to time. I had no idea I was so entrenched in the conversation.
#68 – “Because you say it is” ain’t good enough. Hence my crack about ’some vague, unspecified mystical reason.’ You have yet to come up with one.
Because the common notion that killing is wrong, is what keeps you alive 🙂
Yet as I hammered at Fusio, ‘killing’ is a vague, all-inclusive term. To say ‘killing is wrong’ CATEGORICALLY ASSERTS THAT ALL KINDS OF KILLING – INCLUDING SELF-DEFENSE – ARE WRONG.
If all kinds of killing were the same thing, there wouldn’t be different words for killings done out of different motives, by different parties.
We have the word ‘murder’ which clarifies the fact that we are referring to the UNLAWFUL AND ARBITRARY killing of one or more INNOCENT, UNDESERVING individuals, by (A) PARTY(IES) FORBIDDEN TO DO SO,
We have the word ‘execute,’ which means killing IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, of CERTAIN DESIGNATED CRIMINAL(S), who are GUILTY OF CRIMES WHICH SOCIETY HAS DEEMED THE WORST – PARTICULARLY MURDER.
You cannot make a tricycle equal a Space Shuttle, simply by using the vague term ‘vehicle’ for them both.
And you likewise cannot make execution the moral equivalent of murder just by evasively using the vague term ‘killing’ for them both.
Society does not sanction murder. On the contrary, it is generally regarded as the worst crime, the arbitrary taking of an innocent life.
But society does sanction execution, which IT OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT WERE IT MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO ARBITRARILY TAKING INNOCENT LIVES.
They aren’t the same thing, no matter how often you repeat it. So saying “If this thing is bad, THEN a different thing is just as bad” proves exactly nothing. It is a totally unsupported assertion, no different from “If eating meat is immoral, then eating rocks is immoral.” There is zero logical or semantic connection between the premise and the consequent, which renders it useless.
You are always completely free to believe it, if you see fit. But if you intend to PROVE that execution is morally equivalent to murder, then you must come up with a rational, valid statement which presents an argument – not “It’s so because I said it.”
“The Space Shuttle is the equivalent of a tricycle.” And in a highly abstract and entirely useless fashion, the statement is true. But even an imbecile with rubber gonads adorning his F-150 knows that, in every way that matters in the real world, that statement is ridiculously wrong.
“Both carry people, are steerable, and have three wheel assemblies, one in front, two in back.” At least, that is an ARGUMENT, SUPPORTING my statement, so it can be discussed.
ANyway, enough such horseshit. Fused-brain is an ideologue, just like a religionist denier of evolutionary science, or a PC denier of genetic science, or a capitalist denier of climatological science. The tenets of his beliefs have already been decided and anything that fails to support them is “wrong.”
…and the sad part, what with his brainwashed obstinacy, we never got around to other, substantive aspects of the question… such as, I maintain, as a matter of opinion and personal value judgement, that the creatures who have, like Mr. Pickton, deliberately, brutally, horribly destroyed innocent humans, are themselves NO LONGER HUMANS, by the very nature of their deeds. They have waived membership in human society. They are dangerous animals which deserve to be removed from existence as expediously as possible.
No, (say I), execution, carried out upon those who deserve it (which, yes, IS another issue) is in no way murder.
Keeping Mr. Pickton and his like alive makes every bit as much sense as keeping alive rabid pit bulls who have mauled people to death. They are highly dangerous, they have zero redeeming qualities and the planet is a cleaner, safer, healthier, more civilized place without their existence.
#78–Well–Catshit–In form, not content, as good an answer as can be made I think.
Your analysis though turns your value position on its head? Killing is wrong–but you advocate taking the position that will kill more people? You can’t logically square that position.
You further confuse what a “right” is. The right you, me, 3HC, the majority, the minority all have is not the right to life. Rather, it is a “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that cannot be taken from us except under the due process of law” (to emphasize but still paraphrase.)
There is NO law that says you can not kill. There is only a law that says you can not murder.
I think your basic confusion is pretty well illustrated by 3HC at Post #82 and the tricycle discussion.
If you do fully understand the definitional and logical constraints that you dispense with, then you are left with a truly minority position==killing is always wrong, even to protect yourself. Well, ok. You will either be killed, or have to rely on the moral failure of others around you to protect you and yours.
OFTLO===yes, please continue to contribute with something more than a vanity posting?
#83, bobbo,
There is NO law that says you can not kill. There is only a law that says you can not murder.
While I can’t speak for the entire nation, here, homicide is indeed a crime. It is a defense to have killed for self defense or for the life of another. There are also the mitigating circumstances that determine if it is murder or manslaughter.
You will either be killed, or have to rely on the moral failure of others around you to protect you and yours.
That is the failure in the “pro Death Penalty” camp’s argument. Especially as espoused by Three Empty Heads. There isn’t a”commie” under every bed. There isn’t a crazed gunman ready to shoot me while at the store. There isn’t a suicide bomber ready to blow up my world next time I step outside.
Very few murders are prevented. Criminals will always commit a crime by attempting to not be caught, lest they end up at DU as the stupid criminal of the week. Therefore I can not rely upon your being there to protect me.
It will be the moral upholding of society that will protect our world. People NOT killing people. If I relied upon their moral failures, I could expect to be killed.
Not to be pedantic, but, homicide is neutral and means exactly the same thing as killing.
Mitigating circumstances do not go to the legality/defense of a homicide/killing or the degree of murder or manslaughter to be charged, but rather is only a factor in the punishment to be given for the crime.
While wrong on your terminology, it doesn’t change the logic of your argument.
Heres another whack at your position. Killing is wrong because it debases society making life less valuable which leads to criminals killing more people? AND even if capital punishment lead to fewer deaths you would still be against it because of this debasement. – – – ok.
Well, many people look at the same issue and make just exactly the opposite moral conclusion. Right now, majority still rules.
As I stated before, I actually do think “some” people do deserve to die and that could well be a mixture of revenge or just to intertwined with my view of justice. I don’t think “society” is a “thing” that gets debased or not. People are—not the collective noun. Thanks for the chat. I’ll check back, but nothing new to say?
#82, Three Empty Heads,
You cannot make a tricycle equal a Space Shuttle, simply by using the vague term ‘vehicle’ for them both.
That is a wrong statement. Using the word vehicle to describe both of them is quite proper. True, one can not get more than a couple of inches off the ground and the other can’t do tight corners, however they both convey or transport people.
And you likewise cannot make execution the moral equivalent of murder just by evasively using the vague term ‘killing’ for them both.
Why not? A person strapped to the gurney with the drugs dripping into his arm isn’t being given life. He is having his life taken from him. Therefore, he is being killed as much as the person being gunned down in a drug turf war or smacked over the head by a golf club.
Your error is deciding that inclusive words do not make things equal and therefore there is no comparison. Equality has nothing to do with their definition. Both “vehicles” and “kill” are inclusive words. To Kill means to deprive of life. Homicide, suicide, slaughter, genocide, euthanasia, and execution, are all subsets of “kill”.
Oopps, I didn’t close the bold tag in the preceding post. Oh well, maybe next time I can aspire to be as perfect as TEH thinks he is.
#82, Three Empty Heads
But society does sanction execution,
No one is arguing it is illegal. Execution is a legal punishment in most states. That does not make it right though. For thousands of years slavery was held to be legal. So was second class citizenship for women. Are you proposing that because at one time those laws were sanctioned by society we should once again allow them? Is it right to continue to allow tax exemption for religious properties? What about the Maryland Constitution that forbids Communists and atheists from holding public office?
Legality and morality are not equal. It would be nice if they were but they can’t be. Just because we erred yesterday does not mean that we should continue to err.
ANyway, enough such horseshit.
I am gladdened to see you finally seeing the worth of your posts.
You continue to deny I have made any arguments. You are wrong. You dismissed them because they don’t fall into acceptance of your twisted and false assumptions and definitions. Continually you get all sidetracked into tricycles, IF C IS WRONG THEN B IS WRONG, justifying genocide and those no longer a useful member in society, your “tortie” cat flying a 747, and how much of a deterrent capitol punishment is.
You claim that “self defense” opens the door to execution because it is a deviation. It doesn’t. Self-defense is and should be a contingency. The same as speeding to get to the hospital before your wife delivers or cannibalism after a plane wreck to stave off starvation. Contingency is only a defense, it does not invalidate or excuse a law or moral holding. When there is time and opportunity for reasonable alternatives to be used, a contingency defense will fail. The only reason I argue for its inclusion is to preempt your “what if” argument. Otherwise it is understood.
Slavery right or wrong is irrelevant. Besides, it is a violation of the human rights of innocent persons.
Mr. Pickton is not innocent. He deliberately committed acts which have renounced his right to be regarded as human. He has waived membership in the human race. Human rights only apply to humans.
He no longer has any right to exist. His continued existence is a danger to society. Therefore he should be exterminated like the worthless, dangerous subhuman vermin that he unquestionably is.
Well–when morality is in essence a group consensus, yes, the majority view is most likely right, or at least right for its times.
We could easily enter another dark age and slavery could be seen as right again. In fact what happens is that it is simply an accepted condition of man and right and wrong don’t even apply.
C’mon==rights don’t flow from natural laws, or god, or pieces of paper. Just group think and a willingness to be hypocritical.
Why didn’t you define mitigation? I looked a few places and couldn’t find anything on point one way or the other. so==basically while there is overlap with other terms==offense of law have ELEMENTS that when met define the crime committed. Then there may or may not be FACTORS in mitigation to moderate the punishment given. Say a person murders someoneelse but he was abused as a child. The murder sticks but he may get the lesser end of the punishment.
#90, bobbo,
C’mon==rights don’t flow from natural laws, or god, or pieces of paper. Just group think and a willingness to be hypocritical.
I don’t know about that. We are getting into a truly abstract area here. We need to co-habitat in order to survive. That entails rules and boundaries. As society has become more complex, so have the rules.
“the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order”.
“civilization presupposes respect for the law”.
Group think? Good point. The key to remember though is even group think can be wrong.
Why didn’t you define mitigation?
I didn’t think it relevant. Your definition is correct while “homicide” and “killing” were not.
Mitigating is the reduction of blame. Note, it is not the elimination of blame.
A mitigating circumstance is a “circumstance that does not exonerate a person but which reduces the penalty associated with the offense.” So if O.J. Simpson truly believes those items were his then that would be a mitigating circumstance in the sentences. If he can demonstrate that they were his is a defense.
#89, the Three Headed Moran,
Slavery right or wrong is irrelevant.
Is it? Do examples that demonstrate your position relevant but disprove it irrelevant?
I made that example as a demonstration that things the majority believe or accept and the law of the land can still be wrong.
The Constitution allowed slavery. The laws allowed slavery. The majority allowed slavery. That still did not make it right. Now to use Three Headed Moran logic, let’s change just one word there (and the tense) to “execution”.
So
The Constitution allows execution. The laws allows execution. The majority allows execution. That still does not make it right.
***
Pickton is truly a sad individual. He is not the first and won’t be the last of his ilk. If I were to deviate from my position it would be the cases like his that persuade me. We can not, however, allow the most egregious of cases to set the bar.