Total posts: 755
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Whether there's a difference depends on the nature of the robbery. If the robber is like shoplifting, then there may not be a difference. If the robber is like a hold-up, there could be a difference in the infliction of psychological harm.
That is all immaterial though. The bigger problem is that if intention is completely sidestepped then we're going to start arresting rocks for falling on people and imprisoning hammers for smashing fingers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
like war?
Sure, war can be human sacrifice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you do a theme and overview and everything for me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you mean "and"? You asked me a question and I answered it.
Created:
Posted in:
I would go with the Brothers K. Dostoyevsky is just more interesting to me and I think it probably will be a a deeper, darker, more multifaceted novel. I've heard it's one of the all-time great works of fiction. Also it has the allure of being his last book and is supposedly difficult and dense and all of that But that's just me. I haven't read either so I'm just telling you what I'd do if I were in your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
a mere occupation
That is not a good way to phrase something like that. Especially because issues that are important or unimportant are not necessarily determined by how many people they affect.
And when I talk about the Israeli-Arab conflict with people I know, etc. we usually refer to the situations that are outgrowths of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I understand there's more to it than that, but if you ask for opinions on the Israeli-Arab conflict I don't see what's wrong with sharing something about Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is part of it after all.
If you want to talk about the results of Israel's geopolitical power, I imagine they're not exactly a force for international stability. But what are you going to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
You need to distinguish between a terrorist group and a military or state that behaves unethically.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
That is absolutely false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
It is incredibly complex. Anyone who gives you the pro-Palestine/pro-Israel narrative is missing a lot. I have researched this topic for years and I have seen an endless number of biased sources tell only one side of the story. Be careful who you trust.
The obvious thing right now is that Israel should not be occupying the West Bank and turning a group's homeland into a series of military checkpoints. Besides that, I do not have a strong opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
It is not the status quo, or me being unwilling to take an orthodox position. I see you like to make unfounded assumptions.
Is human sacrifice always acceptable to you? It is rarely acceptable to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If your deterrence rates argument is true, I accept the possibility of more people being harmed in my world than yours. That is not perfect, but it is better than the alternative.
In (probably) the majority of moral situations my opposition to the sacrifice of humans is the deciding factor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you think I am gunning for a perfect world, you are mistaken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But I've clarified to you why imprisonment is just but the DP isn't. And before you say that I didn't clarify that to him, remember that even if I didn't my sentence would only be an apparent contradiction. It would not be an actual contradiction since I have clarified why it does not contradict my actual views when asked about it*.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That is to ask: What did that sentence contradict, given that it was the first sentence I said in that argument (I believe).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If I say a sentence that does not contradict my views, in this case, can the sentence still be hypocritical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So now the problem is that I made it personal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So, that sentence is hypocritical too? Or is the question hypocritical because it is a personal question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
For clarification, I said this prior to the hypothetical that you think is hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Sorry, I edited my sentence. Can you just confirm one more time that it would not be hypocritical under these circumstances?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That wasn't my point. Unless I'm missing yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The point is that being killed for a crime if you're innocent is typically unjust because you could be innocent. It's like: "yeah, evidence might come out later that shows that you didn't do the crime, but fuck you". If evidence comes out later, it doesn't matter because your dead. That's why I asked sadolite if he would really accept being killed as an innocent. And so yeah, it does mean something that if he wasn't killed, he may not or may not have spent life in prison. Because the state prevented him from ever being able to live a normal life again by killing him.
If the state imprisons you for a crime, they're leaving the possibility that you're innocent open. If you're imprisoned for the rest of your life, your example is already different in a key way because now we know whether evidence came out that sufficiently suggested your innocence or not during your life (corruption or lack of info nonwithstanding). My question is based on the possibility that sadolite may be found innocent later if he isn't killed, which is why it's so bad that he's killed. In a comparable situation, where sadolite gets imprisoned for life but evidence may or may not come out of his innocence (which is how it actually works in reality), it's usually better to be in prison than dead. The state is not wronging you necessarily by falsely imprisoning you in an isolated circumstance. The state usually can never know for certain whether you're innocent or not, so they have to use the evidence available to determine your guilt. If they get some things wrong, that's unfortunate, but what were they supposed to do?
Don't say "yeah yeah but my example though we're not doing a death penalty debate" because I asked him the question to make a point about reversibility. I know in both the question and the answer it's irreversible, but that's because your answer is not as equivalent to my question as it should be for a good comparison like I explained in the previous paragraph.
And no the "deterring crimes" in my question and your answer are clearly different things, but we've already been over that so I won't go over it again.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
It's wrong to assume that aliens would have a physical form
I meant the second definition in that dictionary.
I don't care what aliens are in the scientific sense. I do not rule out the possibility that there are conscious (or conscious in some sense) beings that exist in a way that is not conceptualizable to human minds, human science, and/or human logic.
I don't deny established science on earth, but I question whether the newest rendition of science is applicable to the whole of the universe and every phenomenon therein, especially since our conceptions of science, physics, logic, etc. are still evolving.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I don't deny established science on earth, but I question whether the newest rendition of science is applicable to the whole of the universe and every phenomenon therein, especially since our conceptions of science, physics, logic, etc. are still evolving.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Everything in the universe is physical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Oh, I see. "Lifelong imprisonment". I understand how you're using that. Sorry about that. It still doesn't matter, because the question I asked to him presumes that if he were not killed he may or may not spend life in prison. When someone is killed, you don't know if they would have spent life in prison or not, which is what I imply in my question to be what's wrong with the death penalty. But you don't take into account the context clues that explain that because we can never understand anyone's motive for saying anything . If you do end up spending life in prison, there's not necessarily any injustice done.
Magnitude of deterrence has been a differentiating factor between the two sentences this whole time lol. That's why I kept bringing up that my question and your response involve two different punishments happening for two different reasons (deterrence rates and deterring crimes period). I even explained the distinction between those two things.
I still would accept lifelong imprisonment for deterring crimes period.
I still would not accept death for deterrence rates.
Will now hibernate again until another original point is brought up.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
You keep using human classifications to assume things about life forms we could not possibly understand yet.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
It's incredibly difficult to know given how little we know about alien species. You think that they'd fit in with our classifications but they will not necessarily do so. They may not be biological in the traditional sense, either.
Have you ever seen the aliens from 2001: A Space Odyssey?
Created:
It's wrong to assume that aliens would have a physical form or that they would be conceptualizable by the human mind.
Created:
-->
@Alec
The Hyde Amendment does not make much sense to me because people are morally opposed to a lot of things. Their tax dollars are used for them regardless. There are people who oppose being taxed involuntarily, people who oppose social programs, people who oppose immigration restrictions, plenty of people who oppose the United States' continued international intervention, etc. These things are still funded, so why is abortion the issue in particular?
One way it would make sense is this: A pro-choice person believes that abortion should be legal because people have different views on it. When people disagree, you defer to the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Therefore, since the government has not implicitly declared an abortion to be ethically permissible, people have a special right not to fund it since their views are the ones that are being deferred to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then why did I liken you to him in my answer? Because that’s where you’re similar, you’re so hellbent on talking about the differences when the differences had nothing to do with the answer itself
Likening me to him in my answer doesn't do anything and doesn't seem to affect the reversibility argument. You're just responding to my question of "Would you really have A happen to you for the sake of B?" with "Yes, just like you would have X happen to you for the sake of Y".
Would you really sacrifice your life to feed your dog?Yeah just like you would sacrifice some of your time to make sure your dog doesn't die, lol hypocrite
Like I said, I am not anti-sacrifice in all cases.
You're going to say that the death penalty is a punishment too, but the sacrifice of your life is also a sacrifice so the analogy to the dog sentences still works. I'm going to point out that the likening doesn't matter if the sentences cannot be likened and list reasons why (including reversibility), and you're going to say that you didn't say that in your comparison. I am going to say who cares because the sentences are the two thing you're comparing and you've failed to show the part of the sentence that is hypocritical. You'll say that since we both accept punishments for deterring crimes, but I criticize him for accepting a certain punishment for deterring a vague amount of crime, and therefore I'm a hypocrite. I'm going to tell you that there's nothing inherently hypocritical about two people accepting punishments for deterring crimes and one person criticizing the other person for the type of punishment and the magnitude of deterrence that they accept. You may insist that it is. I will ask you why. You may say that "it just is" and I will again try to explain why its not. I will give you the dog example again and the cycle will repeat. It will happen over and over unless you bring up something else.
Alright, Tarik. I think I have had all the fun I can have at this point. Unless you bring up an original point (in which case I will keep responding) I am done arguing. I will not block you, but I have definitely learned not to engage with you in other, future arguments and will only do so briefly if you say anything to me. Thanks for helping me get two gold medals on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Reversibility is not a word in the sentence but it is a key part of the difference between my logic as employed in that sentence and sadolite's logic. The logic of our two sentences is where you believe the hypocrisy is so this is pertinent to you. Reversibility can also obviously be inferred to be why I made the sentence in the first place. Use context clues like they taught you in school. You cannot absolutely know why anyone says anything, so you might as well try to figure it out, especially when it's so clear here and so important to my criticism of sadolite.
Do you want me to just copy and paste when I previously refuted this argument?
Go ahead.
You mean the question? I’m sure you can take a guess (I’ve said it many times already).
Because it's hypocritical?
But if my position and criticism of his are not hypocritical, then why dwell on one sentence that you think is when we all know my stance and criticisms of sadolite's stance?
Will stop responding to things I've already talked about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
They're different in ways that make it impossible to say that one sentence is hypocritical when compared to the other. Everything important is different about them. That's what you're not understanding.
Created: