Total posts: 755
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was being hyperbolic, but sure. This probably should have been settled a while ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well in that case I have a right to call you out on that if I feel like.
You have a right to do whatever you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You realize that any unjust violation of people is procedurally wrong no matter what the consequences are? But maintaining a functional society is a consequential concept, and the significance of consequences in a moral calculus depends on their severity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The former quote discusses a perfect society, and the latter mocks sadolites perfection take, it’s not rocket science.
Well maybe I think that some things are important to make as perfect as possible and some things aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Also its hilarious that you've been looking for contradictions in my positions for the last two days (and with most people you could probably find a contradiction in like an hour) and you give me the "🥱" emoji when you think I've found one like it was easy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I want society to function to a reasonable extent. I don't need society to function absolutely and in every way. If that were the case I could justify making America look like Oceania for the sake of it functioning better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I think you didn’t.
Ok.
Well under sadolites view it would function better if we did.
And?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I think the death penalty serves that same function.
I think I've already covered this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you sure the death penalty is currently prohibited in every state?
No, but if it was there wouldn't be a significant change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I didn't say "every". 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You’ve never seen democrats and republicans debate pertaining to what a functioning society looks like?
You learn in Gov class about the rule of law and presence of social order in our society.
If you really need an answer, we live in a society where there is a set of processes, agreements etc. that are typically followed by people and are protected by rules that have enforcement mechanisms. There are violations of those rules, but most processes i.e. capitalism, government programs and institutions, education still function and those who want to disrupt those processes are discouraged from doing so by the threat of what will happen if they break the rules. This is generally a good description of the U.S.
This is to be contrasted with a chaotic "society" where processes, institutions, agreements and orders are unlikely to play out for very long because there is no universal rule of law to protect them and no enforcement mechanism to enforce that rule of law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Someone's existence or some other property that is substantially significant that is theirs being used as a means to an end when they ideally would not consent to that.
I mean, what do you want me to elaborate on? Do you want me to give examples?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I’m sure some beg to differ on that.
Who? I am actually curious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you know it’s in the absence of Y?
Because society won't fall apart if we don't kill all murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That sounds kinda similar to what sadolite was arguing yet you still called him out, just saying.
This argument is going in circles. You tell me that my position is consistent because I oppose X but support Y which requires X. I say that we shouldn't do X unless Y. I explain why explain why circumstance Y is important enough for us to do X. Then you refer to someone who supports X in the absence of Y.
Are you trolling?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Lmfao if you say so.
I believe that the existence of prisons and a government is necessary as a prerequisite for protecting innocent people (and humanity in general). In a stateless society or a state of chaos I don't believe that innocent people can be protected period, much less anyone else. 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.
Once we create a society with a government and rule of law or some other system to prevent chaos, we are in a better position to concern ourselves with protecting innocents and preventing people from being used as means to ends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Or maybe you just support abolishing prisons?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well I don’t.
WHY NOT??? Forget about the killing people one.
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.
So you support the abolition of the state?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You’re the one that equated inconsistent to illogical, and since I concurred you took issue with it.
There is no but, you said it yourself it’s illogical.
I never said it was illogical. Did you not say that I said it was illogical because I said it was "inconsistent"? Does that not mean you equated inconsistent to illogical or am I confused?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No they aren’t
Explain to me why "I usually support doing my homework, but when I had to go to my grandma's funeral I thought I should skip it" is logical (if you think it is) but "I usually oppose harming innocent people, but it is acceptable when it is necessary for the functioning of society" is illogical. The killing people statement makes sense too but this one is better.
and how is that different than your definition
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.
We'll get to the other stuff later.
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: In principle, states ought to have open borders
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: States ought to be democratic
or
Topic: States ought to mandate that the means of production are democratically owned
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: Kendrick Lamar is the greatest rapper of all time
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: Technological progression ought to continue
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: Libertarianism is a superior political ideology to conservatism
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: Traditional debate is better than progressive debate
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: A two-state solution is the best solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: In principle, the U.S. ought to intervene to stop human rights abuses in foreign countries
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: Individualism is ethically superior to Collectivism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Topic: In principle, wealthy nations ought to give foreign aid to impoverished/developing countries
Am I doing this right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In both cases there are statements that are non-categorical. You have equated non-categorical to inconsistent to illogical. But you accept one and reject the other.
If you don't accept that, how about "I usually support doing my homework, but when I had to go to my grandma's funeral I thought I should skip it". Is that ILLOGICAL?
You are in denial of basic logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I edited my sentence for increased clarity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I wouldn’t say so.
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?
Isn't it true that that sentence, "killing people is wrong" is non-categorical in that case because it does not apply in every possible circumstance? So therefore isn't the sentence inconsistent, and therefore illogical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is the statement: "killing people is typically wrong, however sometimes killing people is necessary for self-defense" illogical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Before we continue into this conversation, do you agree or not agree with the statement that you are frivolously using semantics? Please do not lie to me. If you don't agree, then maybe it will be worthwhile to continue this, but if you do agree, either because you're being willfully dishonest or just trolling, I don't think this conversation is worthwhile for either of us. Trust me, blatantly using semantics to win an argument is just embarrassing. It does not make you look good.
If you feel that you're not using frivolous semantics, please feel free to elaborate as to why that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean if you define inconsistent as "not applying in every possible circumstance" then yeah my position is inconsistent. Maybe a better word would be inconstant? It's a weird definition since inconsistences are typically illogical. But if that is your definition, then sure, my position is inconsistent, but there's still nothing wrong with my position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't think you understand. My principle is not inconsistent, it is just not categorical. It does not apply in all cases because I have other principles. There is nothing wrong with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In that case I will quote myself from before:
I don't think you can measure the value of life solely by how much utility it has. If we did that we could justify killing a lot more people than prisoners. Life has inherent value as possibly the only thing we have. Plenty of very important people had bad lives. And like I said, I think prisons need to be improved; I don't think that the current state of prisons is an inevitable reality. 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. You can still get an education, have friends, and, to a more limited extent, follow your talents in prison. It's just a much more difficult atmosphere.
Even if life is not good, it is still worth living; it may be the only thing of value that actually exists, and there is always time to be dead. It's also seemingly the only place where your potential as a person can be realized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean, I don't agree, but I thought you were trying to detect inconsistencies in my positions. If we're not doing that we can argue about prison vs. death but I want to clarify that that is what we are doing first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I oppose both. But, like I said, I think that if both exist and someone is going to spend their life in solitary confinement, they should be able to choose to have the state kill them if that's possible. But given that the choices are both fucked, I think it should be up to the person who will experience one of the two choices rather than the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well any amount of gods and any amount of metaphysical realities could possibly be real/true. If I knew that there was a specific god that existed, had certain moral prescriptions, and that created a specific afterlife, I would have to reconsider all of my views, not just those on the death penalty. 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. I can't be sure that that's true, but since consciousness seems to be a property of living things, I assume that non-living things are just unconscious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Although I don't know if it's feasible to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And I mean if someone was in solitary and wanted to receive the death penalty instead as long as they both exist I probably wouldn't have a problem with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
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.
Someone else as in a person besides them. I mean like if you see someone who's about to shoot some random guy in the head you can act.
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.
If hell is real wouldn't death be worse than prison?
Even in solitary?
I mean solitary is literally psychological torture...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Everyone does pose a threat to society in some capacity. When I say "a threat to society" I am trying to get across that unless someone is literally about to kill someone else or immediately going to do something extremely harmful they typically should not be killed, unless there's some other substantially significant circumstance going on that I haven't thought of.
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).
I don't think you can measure the value of life solely by how much utility it has. If we did that we could justify killing a lot more people than prisoners. Life has inherent value as possibly the only thing we have. Plenty of very important people had bad lives. And like I said, I think prisons need to be improved; I don't think that the current state of prisons is an inevitable reality. 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. You can still get an education, have friends, and, to a more limited extent, follow your talents in prison. It's just a much more difficult atmosphere.
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.
Say I phrased it like this:
So, if we've established that the potential inconsistency with my position generally opposing the deaths of people who do not pose an immediate danger to society (which is something I probably could have phrased better at the time) is that they might hurt someone else in prison, then, therefore, I'd saying that I am willing to kill people who won't kill anyone in prison on the off-chance they do. So I'd be killing people for offenses they would never commit... so that... other people don't get killed.
Would you have a problem?
And excuse me for getting a little confused when this whole conversation has been a complex interrogation of my views where it can be difficult to distinguish what your positions are and what your challenges of my position are. Don't be so uncharitable. If you're going to engage with every facet of someone's views on an issue and dig down into it, you have to be able to expect that sometimes they will have to rephrase or clarify or sometimes misunderstand what you're saying to them. If you can't then you're not capable of having a decent conversation about this.
Created:
is mafia played over text or in a voice call
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what makes jail necessary but prison unnecessary? Because they both serve the same function in regards to eliminating a specific threat.
And if you're curious why I support jailing people over killing them (which may have been what you meant here) than it's because we need to maintain the social order somehow by keeping people who are dangerous to society from destroying everything. Jail, for all it's problems, is generally better and more humane than death. I guess if you wanted to kill yourself instead of go to jail that would be fine... maybe? (like a voluntary death penalty or something) in some cases. I also obviously believe in prison reform to make jails and asylums better. Sometimes we don't consider people who may have done unethical things in our moral compass, but we ought to because they are still people after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
in good faith I haven’t made any claims in regards to your motivations
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:
-->
@Tarik
So what makes jail necessary but prison unnecessary? Because they both serve the same function in regards to eliminating a specific threat.
Jail and prison?
The only one making implications is you once you made the posing a threat argument, I’m just countering what you’ve been saying.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Sure, but either way what I said here:
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 ,then, therefore, you are saying that you are willing to kill people who won't kill anyone in prison on the off-chance they do. So you'd be killing people for offenses they would never commit... so that... other people don't get killed.
Still proves the consistency of my position. It's just that we're working under my framework, which doesn't change much.
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.
You billed yourself as some kind of nonpartisan arbiter of consistency:
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 I've been assuming that I was supposed to prove that my positions were consistent, not actually get to the heart of why I believe what I believe. And when you ask me why, I have been giving you answers haven't I? Do you want me to explain to you why I believe that killing people who are already captured by the state is wrong?
Created: