Total posts: 755
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Even if that is true in the answer I gave reversibility wasn’t an option just like with yours death penalty because in my answer you spent the rest of your life in jail.
You asked where reversibility was in the question/answer. I gave you that. I don't care whether it was in your answer or not. Analyze the actual intent and logic of my sentence and contrast it with the intent and logic of your sentence and you will see that they're different.
Why is it important to challenge this one sentence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Intentions can't be proven. We can never understand the intentions of anyone when they say something, so we have to use a process of inductive reasoning to figure out what it most likely was. Nonetheless, the BoP is on you to prove my statement to be hypocritical, since you're making the positive claim, no?
and changed the subject about previous things that were said between you and sadolite (which had nothing to do with my hypocritical take on you).
They were supposed to contextualize what I said and show that I was clearly talking about reversibility in my initial statement.
I also think there is something intrinsically silly here about me being interrogated on one statement that is obviously irrelevant to my larger criticism of sadolite's position which you seemingly are not challenging as hypocritical. If you wanted I could literally concede that my sentence was hypocritical (even though I think it isn't), just rephrase my criticisms of sadolite's view and express almost the same thing. Virtually nothing would change since you know my positions which haven't changed and how they apply to sadolite's which also haven't changed.
Address this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Just sent you messages explaining why it isn't which contained new information and reasons.... But, you know, if you say it is.
Created:
It doesnt make sense in principle but ill explain when i have more time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you go to the page where we started talking about this you can see that reversibility was possibly the main point of what I was saying at the time. Also the insufficient reason for the harsher punishment, of course. I oppose sadolite's actions for other reasons, too.
I also think there is something intrinsically silly here about me being interrogated on one statement that is obviously irrelevant to my larger criticism of sadolite's position which you seemingly are not challenging as hypocritical. If you wanted I could literally concede that my sentence was hypocritical (even though I think it isn't), just rephrase my criticisms of sadolite's view and express almost the same thing. Virtually nothing would change since you know my positions which haven't changed and how they apply to sadolite's which also haven't changed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why does it matter whether or not you said it in your example? That was the intent and point of my first sentence to sadolite: to expose something that was unjust about the policy imposed in his world, and the insufficient reason for doing it. Since the policy and the reason are both importantly different different in my world than his, and criticizing his policy and reason are the whole point of the sentence, there's nothing to criticize in my logic. Nothing that I can see at all.
You criticized Sadolite for accepting punishment for a crime he didn’t commit when you did the same
But my sentence is not about the fact that he accepted a punishment despite being innocent. That's fine, and not relevant. Like you say we both do that. It's not what I was criticizing him for either, it was just in my initial sentence to make the point about the death penalty not being reversible, I think. It's about which punishment he accepted in your example and why.
Where in the question/answer did it say that?
would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
Irreversibility had nothing to do with the question/answer.
The point of my question: He is being killed for an insufficient reason, which is just obviously wrong. Part of the reason it's wrong is that if he is innocent (which I say that he is in the question), when he dies he'll be dead for good; no one will be able to help him if evidence ever comes out that he is innocent. The state would be precluding the possibility of the innocence of an individual for deterrence rates. I clarify this to be a problem with the death penalty earlier on in the conversation:
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?
I don't know exactly what part of my argument I was trying to make the most clear when I make my argument (when you make a statement that implies multiple things you usually don't know which particular thing(s) you were trying to imply when you started making the statement), but I'm pretty sure reversibility was part of what I was trying to say initially. It is a large part (possibly even the largest part) of what is wrong with the killing in the question and the unjust killing is the point of my question.
You may be just intentionally prolonging this at this point. Unless you can come up with a new reason why I'm a hypocrite or new logical arguments from your previous reasons, I'll just copy the answers I already gave you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Where did I "disagree"? Do you think I disagree that capturing people and forcing them to work is unethical/immoral? But you're qualifying action using such a broad descriptive, that I attempting to grasp your meaning.
The disagreement about capitalism stems from the disagreement about ethical systems, at least partially. You have said that you disagree with my ethical system. I thought we would start there, no? Unless you want to start on capitalism.
2. Explicitly state the reasons "using as means to ends" is unethical/immoral (i.e. the moral/ethical principles it violates/infracts.)3. Explicitly state the reasons Capitalism undermines/subverts this moral/ethical framework.
But why have two debates at once?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I wanted to reduce the debate to understanding each other's ethical views first because that's where the disagreement stems from in the first place. Then we can move on to capitalism.
So you do or do not understand what I'm saying about using people as means to ends?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What I'm criticizing him for is accepting the death penalty for crime deterrence rates. Imposing the death penalty and doing it only to increase some deterrence rate are the two things I have consistently argued against in this whole conversation.
If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
The fact that the person is getting arrested for a crime they didn't commit is meant to point out the irreversibility of the death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That's true. In your example, we did both "accept" punishment for crimes we didn't commit. Like I said though, my qualm with sadolite is not that he accepted punishment period. It is the type of punishment he advocates for and the reasons behind it.
Tarik, there is nothing to be found here. I don't understand why you're continuing this conversation unless you're very intent on winning it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I just gave you examples to try to articulate what my ethical theory is since it seemed like you did not understand and wanted me to elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a wrongful conviction as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
Here's your answer, for clarification purposes.
And that's irrelevant even if it's true. All that matters is that I criticized his position because of circumstances and actions that were importantly different from my position. That's enough to prove that I'm being consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
(Unless you cited random examples that weren't directly pertinent to the subject matter.)
Yeah. I was trying to focus on explaining my ethical theory. Although something like the third example may be pertinent to the subject matter in some way, but we weren't making that argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The fact that the person is dead is a key distinction. Imprisonment is reversible so it's acceptable to accept imprisonment for deterring crimes period. Death is not reversible so it's not acceptable to accept death for deterrence rates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Did I claim to be anti sacrifice in all cases?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I said "would you really accept your death", no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You realize that you could make this same argument for killing one innocent person to save two. "So the two people who die without an organ transplant are just collateral damage to you?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Yet you care nothing about the suffering and deaths of the victims. That's just acceptable collateral damage.
So you don't recognize the distinction between action and inaction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
"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"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ok just because we both accept something happening to us for the sake of something else doesn't make me a hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Similar statement's are not necessarily hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Lol I still ask what's similar? That we accept something happening to us for a reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...You both accepted as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
We accepted different things as necessary casualties for different consequences. Remember the distinction I made between deterring crimes and deterrence rates?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a wrongful conviction as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
Because I thought I was supposed to clarify why I accept one of these sentences but not the other. Otherwise, I literally see no reason why this comparison works against me at all. They are different sentences that justify different things for different reasons. You haven't told me where in these sentences the hypocrisy can be found, so I assumed that you meant that if one accepts one of those sentences they should also accept the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your starting a circle by saying the same tired arguments over and over again is that your only play here?
Not my play. I'm trying to understand. And you just keep saying stuff about me. For the record, I feel the same about you that you say about me. But I am actually trying to understand and you are just insisting on things.
How many times you have to ask me this same question, instead of being so gung-ho about responding how about you take the time to read what I’m actually telling you.
I mean you're not even arguing at this point. You're just saying stuff. There's a thousand things you've said; what do you want me to read?
If we’re going in circles it’s your fault, you could’ve easily just accepted my answer at face value instead you added the extra variables and made things complicated.
Just saying stuff. All unwarranted. Why would I just say "yeah I'm a hypocrite" when I think I'm a hypocrite?
What extra variables did I add? Can you just lay out again the hypocrisy of my statement? All in one. It would help because you've given tidbits or something here and there. I've always responded to them and disputed the truth of them w/ reasoning. Lay out your claim, your justifications for your claim, etc.
For someone who is getting nowhere in this conversation you are extremely insistent about continuing it.
Good night.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t care nor did I ask for your reason
This is literally the "someone makes a point and the other person says "Didn't ask"" meme. You keep alluding to an un-established hypocrisy.
I’m claiming hypocrisy from the similarity I referenced in my answer.
What similarity?
Do you want to just call it here? You've stopped trying to convince me and are instead satisfied with not being convinced. I don't know what I can do and I frankly don't have time to do any more to try to convince you because I've already put it all on the table. Anyone who has read this far (no one) can give us their input or just form an opinion on whether I am a hypocrite or not. How about that? Do either of us need to do this anymore? We're going in circles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well I think it is otherwise I wouldn’t have drew it, apparently you don’t but whether or not you think it’s good has no bearing on it’s hypocritical nature.
If you say so. I've explained multiple times now why it is not a good comparison.
I’m not getting into what is and isn’t justified in regards to this death penalty debate because like I said countless times before I’m solely focused on the hypocritical question you asked sadolite, period.
You said:
Well the deterring crimes argument was in my answer, theirs the hypocrisy.
In response to:
I did accept the deterring crimes argument.
The deterring crimes argument was a justification. Therefore, you were talking about justifications. I'm still not asking you to have a death penalty debate; I'm talking about the supposed hypocrisy in my statement and how you said that the deterring crimes justification showed my hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...Because I was able to draw a comparison you criticized him for.
Just because you draw a comparison doesn't mean it's a good comparison.
And like I said:
Also, isn't this you? And isn't deterring crimes a justification?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications
Also, isn't this you? And isn't deterring crimes a justification?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How is it hypocrisy just because it's in your answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
What did this mean then? I never accepted the deterrence rates argument. I did accept the deterring crimes argument. Where's the hypocrisy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I said nothing about deterrence rates in my answer did I?
I believed that this:
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
Was conflating deterrence rates (sadolite's justification for killing people) and deterring crimes period (my justification for imprisoning people).
That's how I interpreted what you said.
You're still failing to establish my hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So then where is my hypocrisy here?
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And on top of all that, we've already been over this. I don't remember how many times I've said that at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So me and sadolite still have two different reasons for two different policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
"Deterrence rates" and "deterring crimes" period are too different things. They were used in two different contexts and describe two different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What comparison did I criticize him for?
I am literally addressing the answer you gave, no?
If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a wrongful conviction as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
These are the two sentences that I am saying are not comparable. They are not significantly similar in any way except for their structure. I would accept one but I would not accept the other. That is perfectly logical. I criticize him with one question, and I accept his response that you made up: I would accept my lifelong imprisonment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The harms to innocents aren't the same, the reason for the different harms to innocents aren't the same, and thus the logic of the two sentences aren't the same. So what is the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Instead there's this weird thing going on where I ask a person if they'd accept X happening to them for the sake of Y and you say I'm hypocritical because I would accept a different X happening to me for a different Y.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well that’s the only answer that makes sense because there’s no reason for you to provide an explanation for your views especially since I didn’t ask for it.
I thought that was what you wanted me to do when you because you were drawing an equivalence between sadolite's position and mine. Any logical person would have explained the difference between the two positions and the different justifications for doing different things when one person says that your logic is hypocritical.
And I'm pretty sure now that sadolite did provide a reason for killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
To be clear, I would not want to be falsely imprisoned and would do everything in my power to convince people I was innocent, but the state did not neccesarily do anything wrong by imprisoning me. They would have wronged me if they killed me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Especially when we already have a decent mechanism for deterring crime in America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Don't tell me what my motivations are, especially since me, being the only person who knows what my motivations are, can say for certain that what you just said is 100% wrong.
Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a crime you didn’t commit as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
I would accept that. But I wouldn't accept being killed for deterrence rates.
Created: