Why is murder actually wrong.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 458
#391
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik

...And? In my answer the state prevented you from ever being able to live a normal life again by giving you a life sentence, sure you can argue the possibility of being released but that possibility means nothing if it doesn’t happen and in my answer it doesn’t.
So what? Your answer isn't how this stuff really works. When people get the death penalty, they die forever. When people go to prison, they can get let out. The fact that the possibility of release is PRECLUDED is what's wrong with the death penalty. If someone just doesn't end up getting let out, nothing is being precluded. It is just that nothing ends up happening. That's why the death penalty is wrong but life in prison isn't. 

Well maybe you should’ve said that, it’s easy to say that now AFTER I called you out for hypocrisy
Well now I've clarified to you. If you weren't so excited to win this conversation maybe you'd just accept my clarification and move on. And this is frankly obvious given that everyone knows that if you are killed by the death penalty it was theoretically possible that evidence could have come out exonerating you. 

Not get it wrong.
If only everything worked that way. Even people using the most logical reasoning possible don't always get everything right. Sometimes what actually happened was very unlikely. And when evidence is complex, not everyone will make the correct decision.
That makes no sense, how are you going to argue a similarity between your question and my answer and in the same breath say it’s not equivalent?
In an equivalent comparison of the death penalty to life imprisonment, you would in both cases leave the possibility open that evidence would exonerate the person later on because that's how it really works, and that's because it is how it works in the question I asked. You wouldn't just isolate the life imprisonment cases where people don't get exonerated for no reason. When comparing X to Y and X and Y are different, you compare X and Y. You don't compare X as it is and then Y when a certain result comes about that is more similar to X. 

It's like you saying: 

"Dude, do you really accept lunch ladies intentionally giving their students undercooked food?"

And then I say: 

"Yeah, just like you accept lunch ladies sometimes accidentally giving their students undercooked food." 


#392
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,795
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
If only everything worked that way. Even people using the most logical reasoning possible don't always get everything right. Sometimes what actually happened was very unlikely. And when evidence is complex, not everyone will make the correct decision.
have you considered the average net worth of people who get sentenced to death?
#393
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Not a lot, I imagine. Why?
#394
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,795
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
It's like you saying: 

"Dude, do you really accept lunch ladies intentionally giving their students undercooked food?"

And then I say: 

"Yeah, just like you accept lunch ladies sometimes accidentally giving their students undercooked food." 
determining (a legal quantification of) "intentionality" is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft.
#395
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
That wasn't my point. Unless I'm missing yours. 
#396
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,795
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
Not a lot, I imagine. Why?
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

THOSE WITHOUT THE CAPITAL GET THE PUNISHMENT
#397
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,795
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
That wasn't my point. Unless I'm missing yours. 
ok, so you're NOT considering "intentionality" as a factor in determining whether or not a "crime" has been committed?
#398
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
How much wealth you were born with (or have) and thus how good of a lawyer you are able to get, how you are perceived by the average juror based on your class, how much you learned and cared about ethics, etc. all certainly play factors in who gets killed by the state and who doesn't, I agree. I oppose the death penalty.
#399
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so you're NOT considering "intentionality" as a factor in determining whether or not a "crime" has been committed?
Intentionality is a factor in which/whether crimes have been committed, sure. 

#400
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,795
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
Intentionality is a factor in which/whether crimes have been committed, sure. 
why?

and how do you determine "authentic" "intentionality"?
#401
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Sleepwalking to a bank and robbing it and robbing a bank while fully conscious are two different things. One you could not control, and the other you could control. So whether or not you had an intention and what your specific intentions are in some cases partially determine how right or wrong something is. 

You can rarely/never know intent absolutely. The standard for guilt in the U.S. is not that you absolutely know that a certain crime(s) was committed, but the assessment that someone was probably guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" .

You can reason logically to figure these things out. For example, someone who followed someone around and then bumped them off a bridge while staring at them likely had a more negative intent than someone who was joking around with their friends and bumped someone beside them off of a bridge when they weren't looking. 
#402
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Your answer isn't how this stuff really works. 
Considering this is all hypothetical, it works whichever way we choose it to for the sake of this discussion.

When people go to prison, they can get let out.
They also can stay there for the rest of there life, and in my answer they do.

The fact that the possibility of release is PRECLUDED is what's wrong with the death penalty.
If that’s how you feel then maybe you should’ve told that to sadolite, but that has no relevance in my criticism of you, so save the death penalty debate for him, saying it now is long overdue.

If you weren't so excited to win this conversation maybe you'd just accept my clarification and move on.
Maybe if you man up and accept that without the clarification and judging by the question alone it’s hypocritical then maybe I would.

And this is frankly obvious given that everyone knows that if you are killed by the death penalty it was theoretically possible that evidence could have come out exonerating you.
Do you have evidence of me doubting this?

If only everything worked that way. Even people using the most logical reasoning possible don't always get everything right. Sometimes what actually happened was very unlikely. And when evidence is complex, not everyone will make the correct decision.
You asked the question I gave the answer, all this doesn’t excuse the fact that people should get these things right even if they don’t.

In an equivalent comparison of the death penalty to life imprisonment, you would in both cases leave the possibility open that evidence would exonerate the person later on because that's how it really works, and that's because it is how it works in the question I asked.
Well since you know so much about the law how about you tell me how double jeopardy works?

You wouldn't just isolate the life imprisonment cases where people don't get exonerated for no reason.
Did you even ask?

It's like you saying: 

"Dude, do you really accept lunch ladies intentionally giving their students undercooked food?"

And then I say:

"Yeah, just like you accept lunch ladies sometimes accidentally giving their students undercooked food."
No, not at all, whatever context you provided in this example you’ve failed to provide when asking your question to sadolite and when I say context I’m not talking about the realities of the world I’m talking about your feelings in regards to the issue.

#403
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I have a question (and this may not be an argument I make, I am just curious): If I clarified before I said that statement why I believe killing innocents is especially bad, would the statement I made be hypocritical or not?
#404
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
No, context matters.
#405
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Sorry, I edited my sentence. Can you just confirm one more time that it would not be hypocritical under these circumstances?
#406
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Your editing didn’t change my answer.
#407
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
A. If you kill every rapist, murderer, and pedophile then what if some of the rapists, murderers, and pedophiles you kill are not actually rapists, murderers, and pedophiles?
So does this sentence solve your problem or does it not? 
#408
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
For clarification, I said this prior to the hypothetical that you think is hypocritical. 
#409
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Okay, so maybe your overall position surrounding the issue isn’t hypocritical but your line of questioning was, satisfied? Still takes us back to square one.
#410
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I don't agree, but I am willing to call it here if you want. If not we can talk about my line of questioning. 
#411
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
If we're just going to go back to square one (not sure we will) then I don't see the point in doing it again. 
#412
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
If not we can talk about my line of questioning. 
That’s what we’ve already been doing.
#413
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik

 If I clarified before I said that statement why I believe killing innocents is especially bad, would the statement I made be hypocritical or not?
I did the first thing, and so my line of questioning (which is the same thing as the statement* we're talking about, no?) is not hypocritical, right? Given that you said:

No, context matters. 
Unless you are taking that back. 
#414
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
So does this sentence solve your problem or does it not? 
It doesn’t because it’s the same thing as the hypocritical question, only difference is the former one you didn’t make personal.
#415
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
So, that sentence is hypocritical too? Or is the question hypocritical because it is a personal question?
#416
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
So, that sentence is hypocritical too?
Maybe a little but I probably wouldn’t have come at you as hard as I did because you were just testing the waters to see where his head was at, but when you got your answer you were so persistent in making him see things your way that you made it personal by practically asking the same question (another reason why I took issue with you) and your not too distant from something similar.
#417
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Why?
#418
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
So now the problem is that I made it personal?
#419
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Why?
Take a guess (I’ll give you a hint you’ve asked and I’ve answered this question many times before).

So now the problem is that I made it personal?
That’s not all you did you pretty much asked him the same question twice after he already answered it which wasn’t necessary, that’s why I did it back to you to prove a point.
#420
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I usually don't guess because I don't want to assume what you're saying but it's that life imprisonment also falsely puts people in jail?