Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Username
It wasn’t exactly clear to me that it was a hyperbolic comment, I honestly thought we were making somewhat of a breakthrough and then you took that away by saying you weren’t being serious and then you tried to put it back under conditions (not sure it works that way) and if that’s not the literal definition of trolling then what is? Let me be clear I think I’ve spoken to you long enough to not be convinced your a troll but based on this specific encounter alone one can reasonably assume different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
You were joking right? Just to be clear.
Why? Were you joking when you questioned my genuineness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
...So what did I say that makes you question that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Yeah well you too have a right to question even though you’re wrong if you assume I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I was being hyperbolic
Yet you question if I’m a troll, interesting 🤔.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Well maybe I think that some things are important to make as perfect as possible and some things aren't.
Well in that case I have a right to call you out on that inconsistency if I feel like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
The former quote discusses a perfect society, and the latter mocks sadolites perfection take, it’s not rocket science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I don't need society to function absolutely and in every way.
When the police take me out of my home and make me involuntarily donate all of my organs I will be sure to remember that nothing is perfect and I shouldn't be looking for perfection in life.
...Contradiction at its finest 🥱.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
And?
...And you can’t expect to be convincing with the “functioning” argument considering to him it’s not functioning at its best without the penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I think I've already covered this.
I think you didn’t.
This is evidenced by the fact that we haven't killed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles for a while in the U.S. and society magically still functions.
Well under sadolites view it would function better if we did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I didn't say "every".
No but you said “all” which pretty much means the same thing
Because society won't fall apart if we don't kill all murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
I grant you that we don't imprison every murderer, rapist, etc. but we make make and enforce rules with a significant monopoly of force prohibiting murder, rape, etc.
I think the death penalty serves that same function.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
we haven't killed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles for a while in the U.S.
How do you know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
This is evidenced by the fact that we haven't killed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles for a while in the U.S. and society magically still functions.
We also haven’t imprisoned every murderer, rapist, and pedophile yet society still functions the same way, what’s your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
You’ve never seen democrats and republicans debate pertaining to what a functioning society looks like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
This is evidenced by the fact that we haven't killed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles for a while in the U.S. and society magically still functions.
I’m sure some beg to differ on that, due to people having different ideas as to what a functioning society looks like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Then you refer to someone who supports X in the absence of Y.
How do you know it’s in the absence of Y?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
If that means that an innocent is accidentally harmed by being convicted for a crime they didn't do once in a while, then that has to happen.
That sounds kinda similar to what sadolite was arguing yet you still asked the question, just saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
WHY NOT???
Don’t concern yourself with that, it’s straying from the topic at hand.
So you support the abolition of the state?
Or maybe you just support abolishing prisons?
Please don’t make me the main focus here, this is about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
(if you think it is)
Well I don’t.
The killing people statement makes sense too
Then stick with that, don’t overcomplicate things with the extra unnecessary hypotheticals.
It is BLATANTLY obvious that when someone says that one is being inconsistent in a negative way they mean that you are selectively believing in something without a sufficient reason to believe something in one case and not the other. It's not just when a principle doesn't apply in all cases.
It’s all the same really, nonetheless even by your standard your inconsistent in a negative way (I’m not sure such a thing exists as a positive) because it is NEVER acceptable to harm an innocent human being under any circumstance and that’s a categorical statement.
I never said it was illogical.
Yes you did you said
inconsistences are typically illogical.
Unless I should’ve paid more attention to “semantics” with the word typically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
In both cases there are statements that are non-categorical.
No they aren’t, and you still didn’t answer my question
And how is that different from your definition?
You have equated non-categorical to inconsistent to illogical.
You’re the one that equated inconsistent to illogical, and since I concurred you took issue with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
So then why is the claim I'm making, that it is typically wrong to harm innocents but sometimes harming innocent people is necessary to make a state function, illogical? Isn't it the same kind of sentence?
Because the former is in regards to the guilty and the latter is in regards to the innocent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
If you feel that you're not using frivolous semantics, please feel free to elaborate as to why that is.
Because you’re the one that asked for the semantic dispute when you argued a contrast between categorical, inconsistent, and inconstant so if anyone’s being semantic it’s you with all the extra synonymous terms you’ve added into this equation, you just want to question my authenticity now because you lost the dispute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I mean if you define inconsistent as "not applying in every possible circumstance" then yeah my position is inconsistent.
And how is that different from your definition?
Maybe a better word would be inconstant?
It’s all synonymous really.
But if that is your definition, then sure, my position is inconsistent, but there's still nothing wrong with my position.
There is no but, you said it yourself it’s illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
My principle is not inconsistent, it is just not categorical.
...Just like inconsistent things aren’t categorical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I should rephrase: imprisonment must punish crimes for a government to continue to function. The mass application of this principle will inevitably lead to some false convictions.
Judging by this response I assume you agree your question for sadolite (minus the death penalty) is also fitting for you, if you agree to that then you’re also agreeing to the inconsistency and we can move on, because the only reason I can think of to ask that is if your anti jail as well which apparently you’re not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
As long as the main question isn’t answered then yeah the position remains inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Fine so even if you omit solitary, jail itself is generally viewed as such as well and that’s not a far fetched take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
But I don't see evidence for that so I default to the assumption that after people die their existence is most likely to be an endless oblivion.
So is endless oblivion worse than
psychological torture
Because if not then one can make the argument that you’re doing those on death row a favor by killing them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
If hell is real wouldn't death be worse than prison?
Yeah that’s what I said, you’ve answered all the points outside the main question and that’s what makes jail, for all it's problems, better and more humane than death? Because you’re making it seem like some of the people who commit these heinous acts are victims in their own right, well if God is real and judges that and rewards them heaven then where’s the harm there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
unless someone is literally about to kill someone else
Someone else? Why do we have to wait until they kill a second person to act, why can’t the first offense be enough? This is peoples lives we’re talking about here, the stricter we are in protecting it the more it shows how much we care waiting for the second go round is practically saying it’s okay to do it if it’s only once you get a free pass.
I also think that you're assuming unjustly that a prisoner's life is a fate worse than death, when I think that's an overgeneralization.
Well that depends on what happens in death and if it’s hell for some people then I don’t think there’s anything worse than that.
You can still get an education, have friends, and, to a more limited extent, follow your talents in prison.
Even in solitary? Not everybody is interested in getting their education or can make friends (I’m sure making an enemy is more likely) look if everybody thought prison was preferable over death we wouldn’t have so many on suicide watch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you’ve read the context surrounding that whole post you would know that the quote
“innocent people” were in regards to false convictions, again all having to do with the law and not imparting my views anywhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
No one is ever not a threat at all, in the sense that everyone has the potential to harm.
Even if I accepted that, that’s not what you were referring to when you said
I don't believe in killing people who don't pose a threat to society.
So be consistent and keep that same energy because this is your talking point not mine unless you’re willing to concede the point altogether.
Jail, for all it's problems, is generally better and more humane than death.
Well there’s been reform in regards to the death penalty I don’t think they kill them the same way they used to in the past, I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) after attempting to execute them the assailant may not die instantly and they’re just holding on to dear life suffering, people thought that was an inhumane way of killing so I think they do it differently now maybe before it was hanging and now it’s shocking but for those that believe in hell it makes sense if they also believe the suffering would continue regardless if not be worse but if you don’t believe in hell (which judging by your profile you don’t) then the death penalty should be considered preferable over jail since you don’t believe there’s suffering in death because let’s be real even with all the reform in the world jail is still no picnic (excluding the last meal inmates receive on death row).
Still proves the consistency of my position.
No it doesn’t because you’re trying to speak for me.
So correct me if I’m wrong but what other reason is there to take your talking points and treat them as if they’re mine other than trying to manipulate me into defending your position (I’ve played devils advocate before but this is slightly different)? Because you most certainly did this, I too can quote things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
If something is necessary for the functioning of society, that typically outweighs if it is cruel. If it is not then it often doesn't.
So what makes jail necessary but prison unnecessary? Because they both serve the same function in regards to eliminating a specific threat.
Well for better or worse that's what has been implied to be a justification for killing people guilty of severe offenses for the last 10 posts or so.
The only one making implications is you once you made the posing a threat argument, I’m just countering what you’ve been saying.
I feel as if you are telling me what my motivations are for making statements in this argument.
And I feel as far as this discussion is concerned unless you have any solid proof of what your claiming then you should keep your feelings in your pocket because without that your feelings are nothing but that feelings, but in good faith I haven’t made any claims in regards to your motivations, in fact I’ve lost count how many times I’ve asked you why and last I checked asking why is a question not a declarative statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
So, if we've established that the justification you propose for killing criminals guilty of capital offenses is that they might hurt someone else in prison
No we haven’t established that, who does or doesn’t pose a threat to society was your argument not mine, nice try taking your talking points and treating them as if they’re mine so I can do the work for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Well, it isn't.
And you know this how?
killing them will do next to nothing to prevent prison violence.
It will from the one you executed, if you cut the head off the snake the snake can’t attack you.
I think that imprisonment is necessary for the functioning of a society. I don't think that killing people is
This quote doesn’t answer the question, cruel and unnecessary are two different concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
you imparting, views concerning innocence
You have a direct quote from me doing so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I was dude, you have a right to ask me anything you want just know that if you’re not asking in regards to the law then it’s not applicable to the discussion me and armoredcat were having.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
The question is whether the magnitude and probability of that harm is to ethically justifies in harming the potential perpetrators of that harm in certain ways.
Then answer it, if the magnitude and probability of harm is high (which I believe it is) does that then ethically justify the death penalty? If your answer is still no then I’m curious as to why.
It is cruel to kill people when you don't need to.
Now this is a classic example of the inconsistency I was alluding to before because it is also cruel to convict a person for a crime they didn’t commit yet you’re still pro jail, why does the cruel argument work for the death penalty but not jail I’ve yet to figure that one out from you, lastly take as long as you need I’ll be waiting with the hopes of a sufficient response, don’t work too hard now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Does every prisoner who goes to jail harm someone in jail? Are you willing to make that guarantee?
No I’m not but that’s besides the point, fact of the matter is being in jail doesn’t mean you’re no longer a threat period.
Also, I've also clarified my position on those who aren't mentally ill and made it clear that since the U.S. does not make a significant effort to determine who is mentally ill (in a way that clouds judgement) and who isn't then the death penalty is unacceptable for everyone.
But I asked if they made a significant effort would that have any impact on your stance and you still said no, you’ve yet to give me an answer as to why under those circumstances.
My position is so simple but you're making it so much more complicated than it needs to be.
I’m sure a lot of people with complicated positions feel that way, not to mention I never asked you to rephrase your complicated position, you did that on your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
They're in jail.
What kind of things do you think happen in jail?
But a lot of people end up killing people for example because their mental illness skews their perception of reality. Schizophrenia is the most obvious example.
Point already taken but when I took them out of the equation you still had issue with the death penalty so the mental illness argument is just an excuse as far as this discussion is concerned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I don't believe in killing people who don't pose a threat to society.
So if murderers, rapists, and pedophiles don’t fit that description then what does?
And what do you mean by "that's an understatement"?
Because when you say that without mentioning the reason they’re being executed it’s misleading and fact of the matter is they’re not being executed for being “mentally ill” they’re being executed for being a murderer, rapist, or pedophile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And you question more that answer, so one has to make assumptions.
You don’t have to assume anything, if you have curiosities in regards to the law then Google is free dude look it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Yes, but you're saying that if there wasn't you'd be okay with killing a bunch of severely mentally ill people?
That’s an understatement, and I don’t assume to know the answers to these types of things I just observe from afar to and speak up whenever I detect any inconsistency, so let me get this straight your only qualm with the death penalty is the system being sloppy in determine who is and isn’t mentally ill? So (hypothetically speaking of course) what if they weren’t would you then be okay with the legally sanctioned killing of rapists, murderers, and pedophiles if the answer is no then again I ask why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though if that is the be all and end all, then why involve yourself in what is clearly for you, only ever going to be a one sided discussion.
You lost me here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How we address the matter of murder has simply become an established social convention.
And under that established social convention is what I was referring to when I brought up innocence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
who was a sane person that committed a terrible crime
Is there such a thing as a sane person that does those heinous acts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Innocence....Now there's another can of indefinite worms for you to get your teeth into, Tarik.
I was strictly speaking in the context of our current legal justice system (which some may say is more cut and dry) we haven’t even scratched the surface yet so don’t jump the gun here zedvictor4.
Created: