[QUOTE=AngryChairR;32777228]Makes perfect sense to me, tell me what you're confused about and I'll explain it in simple terms for you.[/QUOTE]
Aw look it's AngryChair, still trying (and failing) to muster enough intelligence to zing someone.
Have you not learned your lesson from your little Lua pop quiz?
Yes, please do explain how his most recent post makes [b]any[/b] sense.
That part about "removing rights permanently" came totally out of the blue, and there was no explanation as to how I had contradicted myself, so pardon me if I was a liiiiitle bit confused by his argument.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32779351]Case and point... AGAIN. If you would stop being such an ignorant tard and READ what the OP asked. [B]In a situation where someone intentionally killed 50 innocent people should they have humane treatment.[/B] We're not talking about self defense, people who are engaged in militaristic combat, or people that are defending others. You could quite easily easily extrapolate that I support self defense from my opinion so don't be a dumb shit. Start a new thread if you want to talk about self defense.[/QUOTE]
Oh right so this entire thread is [b]only[/b] about what would happen in a purely hypothetical situation in which someone killed exactly 50 people who were entirely innocent. Sorry, I didn't know thinking about the repercussions of that sort of world is a bad thing.
Once again I will ask:
How do you decide what crimes should invalidate your human rights?
And how can you justify giving governments the power to decide where that line is drawn?
What happens when
1. This guy is a threat to our regime!!
2. Frame him for mass murder
3. He has no rights and is no longer a threat to us, and we face no punishment
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32779351]I'm amazed at how many people have just jumped into this thinking they've read the entire thing and are stabbing at comments out of context... morons.. specifically you HumanAbyss and Megafanx13. Read the whole thread before you pick and choose certain sentences. Don't quote me where I said that I was wrong in my estimation of statistics but that regardless it doesn't change my opinion because it's not the main basis of it and think I am ignoring the loss of support I had when I have clearly acknowledged it. Don't be so anxious to spit out your opinion and attack someone without reading everything they've said. If you don't want to read all the pages then don't comment on anyone in particular just state your opinion. And those of you that keep whining about the justice system not being perfect but then patting each other on the back saying "oh lawl omg Mr. America is just gonna say this is hypothetical ahahah , almost as if the OP stated a hypothetical not a real life discussion of American justice systems". Apparently that's far too complex for you hiveminds to comprehend...
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
I agree preventative measures are far more effective than any reactionary measure in stopping future crime, I was just responding to the OP's question of what we should do as a response to a murder not how to prevent it.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
Case and point... AGAIN. If you would stop being such an ignorant tard and READ what the OP asked. [B]In a situation where someone intentionally killed 50 innocent people should they have humane treatment.[/B] We're not talking about self defense, people who are engaged in militaristic combat, or people that are defending others. You could quite easily easily extrapolate that I support self defense from my opinion so don't be a dumb shit. Start a new thread if you want to talk about self defense.
This thread has become useless now that we have so many of you retards just commenting on off topic things and thinking you're so brilliant for asking what about someone who is killing to protect their lives, which is not what we're talking about, and that executing someone for murder is the same thing as intentionally taking the lives of innocents; which it is impossible to be equal to because we are talking about executing GUILTY murderers, not innocents.....[/QUOTE]
I read the [b]whole[/b] thread. That doesn't mean your points are more valid or "better" simply because i have a full context of this discussion. Either way, you're still arguing for something which by all reasons I can't see a reason to have. And don't even try fucking pulling that card. [b]WE GET WHAT YOU MEAN. You're understood. We aren't just "misunderstanding" you.[/b] Just because we get what you're saying doesn't make it right. I've read this whole thread, and I've read arguments exactly like you so many times but they don't make anymore sense than responding based purely on emotion.
In the "ultimate" hypothetical, a terrorist who killed 50 people would like not be taken alive, or would face pretty harsh consequences, but no, I don't believe they should lose their rights, no matter how monstourous they may be because I don't see an emotional over-reaction to the situation to be the best answer.
It's funny how you call this thread useless when you're not immediately accepted and hailed as a moralist hero. Then you say the difference between a normal person and [b]any[/b] murderer is that the murderer just isn't human. That isn't the truth for many people, and it shouldn't be. You keep bringing up self defense like it's a huge major point we're all trying to shove down your arrogant throat, but we're not. The point we're all trying to shove down your throat is that people should, and do have inalienable rights, not ones that are arbitrarily taken away.
Which is exactly what you haven't seemed to get yet. you're arbitrarily killing people and justifying it and saying that it's not killing. It's killing, and it's arbitrary. Their guilt doesn't make them non-people, it also doesn't make us monsters who should have to sink to their level out of emotional reaction. Justice exists solely to be a cold, calculating, and [b]just[/b] system. It is not meant to dish out the hot headedness of retribution, it is meant to take the emotionality out of it. People like you can't seem to react with out utilizing emotion as your main "critical thought".
And it's [b]hilarious[/b] you don't see the potential for breaching of "rights" in this. Do you want to know something? Nixon started the war on drugs so he could lock up the people protesting the vietnam war and have his war without a war protest. This worked incredibly well. That's corruption already, and i have no doubt worse would happen if you made a "right" a "privledge". You really haven't thought this shit through is our point, and as angry as you want to be about that, neither of you can explain [b]why shedding more blood is more "moral"[/b], if you can't explain your ideas, then you haven't thought them out enough.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32780887]Aw look it's AngryChair, still trying (and failing) to muster enough intelligence to zing someone.
Have you not learned your lesson from your little Lua pop quiz?
Yes, please do explain how his most recent post makes [b]any[/b] sense.
That part about "removing rights permanently" came totally out of the blue, and there was no explanation as to how I had contradicted myself, so pardon me if I was a liiiiitle bit confused by his argument.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
Oh right so this entire thread is [b]only[/b] about what would happen in a purely hypothetical situation in which someone killed exactly 50 people who were entirely innocent. Sorry, I didn't know thinking about the repercussions of that sort of world is a bad thing.
Once again I will ask:
How do you decide what crimes should invalidate your human rights?
And how can you justify giving governments the power to decide where that line is drawn?
What happens when
1. This guy is a threat to our regime!!
2. Frame him for mass murder
3. He has no rights and is no longer a threat to us, and we face no punishment[/QUOTE]
Well yes, the entire thread is about knowing for a fact someone that was guilty of murdering innocents so that was all I was discussing. The repercussions of these ideas in the real world, while related, aren't the topic the OP stated because it doesn't answer the specific question he asked. So, I have ignored them as much as possible.
You decide what crime invalidates human privileges by determining whether or not someone has intentionally killed or maimed an innocent person without any justifiable provocation (the only justifiable provocation here would be that the person was threatening your life, then you by all means are entitled to defend yourself).
I justify giving goverments the power to decide where the line is drawn by drawing the line ONLY at the point where someone is murdering an innocent. Accidents and self defense don't fall in that category. I'm only discussing someone who has intentionally murdered an innocent person that has not made any threat on their life or physically and permanently damaged their health.
Response to your what happens when (stupid questions):
1. That's stupid as hell. I obviously don't support that since I'm only advocating executing people who we know for a fact murdered someone for their own desires and was not self defense or a legitimate action.
2. Frame him? Again, stupid because we are assuming we know everything in the situation described by the OP. Obviously, in practice there needs to be trials to avoid any framing or badly doled out punishments. However, I'm just talking about someone we know did it for a fact and did it for some reason other than to protect their life or someone else's life so quit being mad that I'm not talking about other situations because that's not what this thread is about. We're just discussing ethically if humane treatment is deserved by the guilty, not how mistakes can occur in judicial systems.
3. He has no rights and is no longer a threat to us-I'm assuming you mean we have executed the person? Correct we face no punishment because we have not executed an innocent person, but instead someone who is guilty of taking life for no justifiable reason (again, the only justifiable reason is defense of life of oneself or another).
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32781131]I read the [b]whole[/b] thread. That doesn't mean your points are more valid or "better" simply because i have a full context of this discussion. Either way, you're still arguing for something which by all reasons I can't see a reason to have. And don't even try fucking pulling that card. [b]WE GET WHAT YOU MEAN. You're understood. We aren't just "misunderstanding" you.[/b] Just because we get what you're saying doesn't make it right. I've read this whole thread, and I've read arguments exactly like you so many times but they don't make anymore sense than responding based purely on emotion.
In the "ultimate" hypothetical, a terrorist who killed 50 people would like not be taken alive, or would face pretty harsh consequences, but no, I don't believe they should lose their rights, no matter how monstourous they may be because I don't see an emotional over-reaction to the situation to be the best answer.
It's funny how you call this thread useless when you're not immediately accepted and hailed as a moralist hero. Then you say the difference between a normal person and [b]any[/b] murderer is that the murderer just isn't human. That isn't the truth for many people, and it shouldn't be. You keep bringing up self defense like it's a huge major point we're all trying to shove down your arrogant throat, but we're not. The point we're all trying to shove down your throat is that people should, and do have inalienable rights, not ones that are arbitrarily taken away.
Which is exactly what you haven't seemed to get yet. you're arbitrarily killing people and justifying it and saying that it's not killing. It's killing, and it's arbitrary. Their guilt doesn't make them non-people, it also doesn't make us monsters who should have to sink to their level out of emotional reaction. Justice exists solely to be a cold, calculating, and [b]just[/b] system. It is not meant to dish out the hot headedness of retribution, it is meant to take the emotionality out of it. People like you can't seem to react with out utilizing emotion as your main "critical thought".
And it's [b]hilarious[/b] you don't see the potential for breaching of "rights" in this. Do you want to know something? Nixon started the war on drugs so he could lock up the people protesting the vietnam war and have his war without a war protest. This worked incredibly well. That's corruption already, and i have no doubt worse would happen if you made a "right" a "privledge". You really haven't thought this shit through is our point, and as angry as you want to be about that, neither of you can explain [b]why shedding more blood is more "moral"[/b], if you can't explain your ideas, then you haven't thought them out enough.[/QUOTE]
Based off your responses and those of others, you do not understand fully what I am saying.
Explain why you think they should retain their rights and justify that against the monstrosity of their actions please I am interested in knowing what convinces you.
Actually, I called this thread useless because of the types of responses that became so prevalent not because people don't agree with me. I don't care if people don't agree and that's why we're here to debate, because we have differing opinions. If I came in here to be hailed like a hero for my opinion I'd be seeking a worship thread not a debate thread, I came here expecting differing opinions; just not stupid responses. The murderer is human by genetic composition, by morality standards they are not; unless they took the life to protect theirs or another's there is no excuse even if they "feel bad". That might not be the truth to many people, but I'm speaking for me and not the entire population. I do think self defense is a major point because that's the only justifiable reason to kill someone (obviously excluding the execution of a guilty murderer, since I'm sure someone was going to chime in thinking they're brilliant that they don't think executing a murderer is self defense). I don't see how you think murder is an arbitrary reason to remove somebody's privilege to live. Life is not inalienable, it can be taken away by man, nature, or machine; it is a privilege that hopefully everyone can keep.
I didn't say it wasn't killing, I'm not talking about execution with nerf darts. I'm just arguing that it is justifiable execution, but you think murder isn't a reason for someone to lose "inalienable rights" that aren't really rights purely based on the fact that they can be taken against your will. It's not sinking to their level to execute them, because we aren't at their level of murdering an innocent. How can you not see the difference. If justice is supposed to be cold and calculating then why should you feeling bad about someone being executed for their crime matter? If it's cold and JUST then you would assume equality of punishment for that of the crime. Hence, execution. Not, murder=hot meals, bed, and home for the next 80 years and be accepted by people who can turn a blind eye to what you have done because they think that murder is something that's "just part of life and isn't their fault". Wouldn't you consider your position of maintaining their lives to be emotional as well because you "feel" that life is important and inalienable and you would feel that it was too immoral to execute them.
I don't understand why you think that jut because I argue something is a privilege is a right, that somehow means I support destroying those privileges against other people for selfish reasons. Nixon's actions, if they are exactly as you described are unjustifiable and morally wrong because he violated other people's privileges without good cause. If you are so sick that the mere word "right" is what stops you from harming others or jailing them then you have a serious problem.
If just is cold and [B]just[/B], implying fair and equal. Then it should fully support execution of murderers because it is the fair and equal punishment for their actions. Not because you "feel bad" or that you "feel" their life is worth saving because it's so precious for some reason. No. Justice is cold, does not care how you feel and will punish people with indiscretion and equal ferocity as that of the crime.
Shedding blood (executing a guilty criminal) is morally justifiable because they have committed a murder of an innocent and to execute them would not be the same thing because you are executing someone who has maliciously taken the privilege to life from someone without their provocation or compliance.
Life is a privilege not a right. You have no right to life as a drowning man, nothing will stop you from drowning because you think you have a "right" to life. You are privileged that you have not spontaneously combusted, been murdered, drown, had a heart attack, or slipped and fallen off a building to your death; it is not your right that these things have not happened but your privilege. If you want to think you can hurt people just because life isn't a "right" then you should seek help.
How does debating about a very narrow and hypothetical situation make any sense at all?
The point of debates is to expand points of view and create ideas to use in the practical world.
Arguing about only a single case and using that to extend to all cases without regard to different circumstances is not a way to debate.
[QUOTE=Valnar;32781725]How does debating about a very narrow and hypothetical situation make any sense at all?
The point of debates is to expand points of view and create ideas to use in the practical world.
Arguing about only a single case and using that to extend to all cases without regard to different circumstances is not a way to debate.[/QUOTE]
It makes sense because the debate was started by a person who set out the parameters of what he wanted to have discussed. The point of debates is to argue about a topic and understand other people's viewpoints not to create ideas, unless that was the purpose of the debate. A debate is not required o expand to multiple circumstances.
Every single person has human rights and they shouldn't be taken away, no matter what.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32781348]
Life is a privilege not a right.[/QUOTE]
Who promoted you to god?
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32782227]Who promoted you to god?[/QUOTE]
Nobody, read the logic behind it. You haven't given any reason as to how it's a right. Thanks for making a little kid statement with no argument.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32782255]Nobody, read the logic behind it. You haven't given any reason as to how it's a right. Thanks for making a little kid statement with no argument.[/QUOTE]
thanks for literally posting nothing but "that's not what we're talking about; we're actually talking about [i]this[/i]" for 10 pages straight
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32782255]Nobody, read the logic behind it. You haven't given any reason as to how it's a right. Thanks for making a little kid statement with no argument.[/QUOTE]
HAH
You're calling someone else out on making a "little kid statement"? So says the guy that assumes his morality is implied and objective. All of your argument, literally all of it boils down to you thinking your morality is objective.
You still haven't gotten over this idea that not all murderers are blood hungry and wish death upon others(you seem to have quite the comparable blood frenzy) and you can't seem to get over that just because you see an action as forever morally reprehensible, not all of us do. In your hypothetical, which isn't how you base a debate really, sure, a man who killed 50 completely innocent people for no reason besides pleasure is beyond the help of any rehabilitation system. But that's not realistic or practical because the argument ranges beyond that. You can scream and cry that we just don't get your subtle genius all you want, but the fact of the matter is, your view of morality is not objective, is not the truth, and doesn't deserve more credence than one that values [b]all[/b] human life, regardless of actions. Your philopsohpy and ideas are black and white and there's clearly no room for grey.
Hell, I also wonder why you advocate for the removal of rights and the creation of "privileges" instead, because at the heart of this argument, that's what it's about, and it's about what arbitrary line in the sand we're all going to draw. I don't believe that executing everyone who murderers and the removal of what ARE human rights under any condition to be correct.
We're [b]human[/b]. We forgive, we don't try and kill everything we don't like(i'm wrong, we do, but we shouldn't advocate this). The idea that murdering is the key(call it what you want, you're advocating murder, whether you think it's justified or not) to a better society is honestly asinine, ludicrous, and fucking insulting to all people.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32781348]
Based off your responses and those of others, you do not understand fully what I am saying.
[B]Oh really? You've just been saying "we're not talking about that, we're talking about this" circularly for pages now. [/B]
Explain why you think they should retain their rights and justify that against the monstrosity of their actions please I am interested in knowing what convinces you.
[B]Because, human rights are there to protect us from government influence in our lives, removing them or changing them in anyway gives the government more power over us than I'm comfortable with, you can't see the slippery slope, fine by me, but it's there. [/B]
Actually, I called this thread useless because of the types of responses that became so prevalent not because people don't agree with me. I don't care if people don't agree and that's why we're here to debate, because we have differing opinions. If I came in here to be hailed like a hero for my opinion I'd be seeking a worship thread not a debate thread, I came here expecting differing opinions; just not stupid responses. The murderer is human by genetic composition, by morality standards they are not; unless they took the life to protect theirs or another's there is no excuse even if they "feel bad". That might not be the truth to many people, but I'm speaking for me and not the entire population. I do think self defense is a major point because that's the only justifiable reason to kill someone (obviously excluding the execution of a guilty murderer, since I'm sure someone was going to chime in thinking they're brilliant that they don't think executing a murderer is self defense). I don't see how you think murder is an arbitrary reason to remove somebody's privilege to live. Life is not inalienable, it can be taken away by man, nature, or machine; it is a privilege that hopefully everyone can keep.
I didn't say it wasn't killing, I'm not talking about execution with nerf darts. I'm just arguing that it is justifiable execution, but you think murder isn't a reason for someone to lose "inalienable rights" that aren't really rights purely based on the fact that they can be taken against your will.
[B]Yes, we [i]know[/i] you've been arguing that it's "justified". It's not just because you say it is. You're also implying some mythical element to rights which is just a fucking fallacy. Rights are government ordained and are meant to be in check by the government, a right to life doesn't mean you can't die, it just means that you deserve a chance to live. Yes, it's morally reprehensible that people kill other people, but I'm not ready to blame them for all of their actions all of the time because truthfully, it's not entirely their fault all of the time. [/B]
It's not sinking to their level to execute them, because we aren't at their level of murdering an innocent. How can you not see the difference. If justice is supposed to be cold and calculating then why should you feeling bad about someone being executed for their crime matter?
[B]Yes, it is the very definition of sinking to their level. How do you not see the difference? Killing people = killing people. No matter who you're killing you're still fucking killing. It's not about me feeling bad about something, it's not about me or you, it's about valuing justice. Justice is cold, but is a cold action to murder someone in retribution. Yes, we all know, you have your own fucking definition of justice, but yours is not the correct one and hasn't proven itself to be the most effective one around. [/B]
If it's cold and JUST then you would assume equality of punishment for that of the crime. Hence, execution. Not, murder=hot meals, bed, and home for the next 80 years and be accepted by people who can turn a blind eye to what you have done because they think that murder is something that's "just part of life and isn't their fault". Wouldn't you consider your position of maintaining their lives to be emotional as well because you "feel" that life is important and inalienable and you would feel that it was too immoral to execute them.
[B]Cold justice doesn't mean an eye for an eye. That's a very angry way to take "justice" and that's not how the rest of us want to see justice, simply as a method of retribution. You act like prisons delightful, like it's a fucking safe haven. I'm honestly excited to see you in a prison cell telling us all how fucking comfy it is. Because guess what buddy, you won't. It's better than the street for some, but it's not "nice" by any means. But then again, you require torture of these people in order to call it "fair". It has nothing to do with "being part of life" despite that yes, it is part of life. My position is maintained by my desire to not see rights trampled on, mine, yours, a criminals, anyone's, because we're all guaranteed our rights, not our "privileges". If it is emotion, it's not an angry hatefilled one, so i'd call it a little bit more legitimate than yours. [/B]
I don't understand why you think that jut because I argue something is a privilege is a right, that somehow means I support destroying those privileges against other people for selfish reasons. Nixon's actions, if they are exactly as you described are unjustifiable and morally wrong because he violated other people's privileges without good cause. If you are so sick that the mere word "right" is what stops you from harming others or jailing them then you have a serious problem.
[B]Because if you gave the government the power to take away your "privileges" because that's all they are, then they will execute this power every chance they get. They have enough trouble respecting a right, what makes you think for a second they'd care about your "privilege"?[/B]
If just is cold and [B]just[/B], implying fair and equal. Then it should fully support execution of murderers because it is the fair and equal punishment for their actions. Not because you "feel bad" or that you "feel" their life is worth saving because it's so precious for some reason. No. Justice is cold, does not care how you feel and will punish people with indiscretion and equal ferocity as that of the crime.
[B]No, because "just" doesn't mean eye for an eye no matter how fucking much you want it to. [/B]
Shedding blood (executing a guilty criminal) is morally justifiable because they have committed a murder of an innocent and to execute them would not be the same thing because you are executing someone who has maliciously taken the privilege to life from someone without their provocation or compliance.
[B]Not an objective view as you seem to believe. Also only morally justifiable if you dehumanize the person you're hating. But, you've never met a real murderer is my guess. You think they're all full of hatred and malice, that they have no "souls" and nothing to give to anyone. Bullshit, not all murderers are cold blooded fucking psychopaths. Get. This. Shit. Through. Your. Head.[/B]
Life is a privilege not a right. You have no right to life as a drowning man, nothing will stop you from drowning because you think you have a "right" to life. You are privileged that you have not spontaneously combusted, been murdered, drown, had a heart attack, or slipped and fallen off a building to your death; it is not your right that these things have not happened but your privilege. If you want to think you can hurt people just because life isn't a "right" then you should seek help.[/QUOTE]
See, again you go on with this mythical aspects of rights. No one ever said the right to life would keep you living, it's not the obligation to live, it's the right to live, [b]THEY ARE DIFFERENT[/b]. Drop this horseshit part of the argument because it only makes me laugh that you rely on a mythical definition of a right in order to attack it. It's fucking hilarious man.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32779351]
Case and point... AGAIN. If you would stop being such an ignorant tard and READ what the OP asked. [B]In a situation where someone intentionally killed 50 innocent people should they have humane treatment.[/B] We're not talking about self defense, people who are engaged in militaristic combat, or people that are defending others. You could quite easily easily extrapolate that I support self defense from my opinion so don't be a dumb shit. Start a new thread if you want to talk about self defense.
This thread has become useless now that we have so many of you retards just commenting on off topic things and thinking you're so brilliant for asking what about someone who is killing to protect their lives, which is not what we're talking about, and that executing someone for murder is the same thing as intentionally taking the lives of innocents; which it is impossible to be equal to because we are talking about executing GUILTY murderers, not innocents.....[/QUOTE]
In a way, they aren't being off-topic at all.
Here is the OP's post:
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32754464]Basically, this was the topic of discussion for a 4 page shit storm I started, so I wanted to take it over here to start a non-hostile discussion about the idea and the mechanics for and against it. I'd just like to hear more opinions on the matter.
Here is an example, to clarify when something like this would apply. Say a terrorist bombs a train station or whatever, and it kills 50 innocent people. Should he be tortured to find out if there are other attacks that put innocent people at risk? Does this bomber deserve death or harsh punishment for killing the innocent people?
With my radical opinion, I believe that someone who commits such an atrocious act is no longer worthy of these rights because of a blatant disregard for human life. Since rights cannot be taken away, they must just be privileges, correct? This opinion is comparable to Hammurabi's code, "An eye for an eye" or "A hand for a hand". In this circumstance it would be more like, "A life for a life" as fair retribution.
In what circumstances do you believe this is applicable, if at all? Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Rights can't be taken away, we get it. We're debating if they should be privileges, which CAN be taken away. Stop posting the same argument repeatedly.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Rights can't be taken away, we get it. [b]We're debating if they should be privileges, which CAN be taken away.[/b][/quote]
The bolded quote above was the main debate. If he can post an [i]example[/i] relating to the debate, then why can't we?
You need to have Gold membership to be treated as a human.
This is just a pointless thing to ask, everybody is equal.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32782932]thanks for literally posting nothing but "that's not what we're talking about; we're actually talking about [i]this[/i]" for 10 pages straight[/QUOTE]
You can thank the people incapable of staying on topic, not me.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32783017]HAH
You're calling someone else out on making a "little kid statement"? So says the guy that assumes his morality is implied and objective. All of your argument, literally all of it boils down to you thinking your morality is objective.
You still haven't gotten over this idea that not all murderers are blood hungry and wish death upon others(you seem to have quite the comparable blood frenzy) and you can't seem to get over that just because you see an action as forever morally reprehensible, not all of us do. [B]In your hypothetical, which isn't how you base a debate really, sure, a man who killed 50 completely innocent people for no reason besides pleasure is beyond the help of any rehabilitation system[/B]. But that's not realistic or practical because the argument ranges beyond that. You can scream and cry that we just don't get your subtle genius all you want, but the fact of the matter is, your view of morality is not objective, is not the truth, and doesn't deserve more credence than one that values [b]all[/b] human life, regardless of actions. Your philopsohpy and ideas are black and white and there's clearly no room for grey.
Hell, I also wonder why you advocate for the removal of rights and the creation of "privileges" instead, because at the heart of this argument, that's what it's about, and it's about what arbitrary line in the sand we're all going to draw. I don't believe that executing everyone who murderers and the removal of what ARE human rights under any condition to be correct.
We're [b]human[/b]. We forgive, we don't try and kill everything we don't like(i'm wrong, we do, but we shouldn't advocate this). The idea that murdering is the key(call it what you want, you're advocating murder, whether you think it's justified or not) to a better society is honestly asinine, ludicrous, and fucking insulting to all people.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
See, again you go on with this mythical aspects of rights. No one ever said the right to life would keep you living, it's not the obligation to live, it's the right to live, [b]THEY ARE DIFFERENT[/b]. Drop this horseshit part of the argument because it only makes me laugh that you rely on a mythical definition of a right in order to attack it. It's fucking hilarious man.[/QUOTE]
Yes, murderers aren't blood thirsty or people that want to kill anyone. They just kill people because they're feeling a little fuzzy inside.. Come on, you can't say people who kill intentionally aren't out for blood. Then it would be an accident, which I said would not be the same thing and should be treated more lightly as it was not intentional. Also, saying "who made you god" just because he doesn't agree is a little kid statement. It doesn't counter mine at all, show any holes, or provide any alternative except the assumption that I am claiming to be all powerful.
Thank you for stating that the person is beyond rehabilitation finally, I'm glad you were able to concede to it. The debate was about that situation and ones that were along the same lines as it in terms of known guilt and malice, so I don't see how it's not a way to debate just because you wanted to incorporate other circumstances. My philosophy is black and white for a black and white situation. I have shown before that in circumstances of grey that it should be treated as such and that this is the case in reality....
Why do you keep saying there's some arbitrary line to be drawn? I stated clearly that there are no rights, just privileges. However, despite this the lines should be drawn just about exactly where they are right now when considering things to be "rights". Just because something is a privilege not a right doesn't mean it should be abused any more or respected any less, it's just an acknowledgement of the reality that everything is a privilege.
I'm sorry that you don't like my opinion but clearly it isn't insulting to all people since the majority of Americans support the death penalty... it appears as though you should be backing up how I am some horrible anomaly that wants everybody dead to quench my blood thirst.. Also, I'm not advocating killing anything we don't like, just people that have intentionally killed an innocent person. That is the extent of my opinion. I don't think we should kill someone who accidentally ran someone over or anything, just people that intentionally committed murder; which as you have admitted are beyond rehabilitation.
You keep bitching that I say you're off topic then continue to be off topic and talk about protecting us from the government.. Which I completely agree with. The government should not have these powers as they would be abused, mistreated, and mistakes would be made.
Rights are not government ordained if you think they are "inalienable". That means they can not be taken away. Even under a circumstance with government if life were inalienable the murderer should never have been able to kill anyone since they had the right to live and that can't be taken from them. I know you see the logic as to why there is no true "right" in real life, only privileges no matter how much we want them to be rights.
I don't think all murderers are full of hatred and malice 24/7 but it doesn't matter to me. The fact of the matter is that they were at one point, and ended an innocent person's life. That is what matters. Also, again..... (I can't believe I'm saying this again) I'm only talking about murderers who blatantly killed an innocent person. Not someone out for retribution on an unjustly punished person, not someone who screwed up and killed someone, and not someone who was defending themselves. Get. This. Through. Your. Head. Please. Idiot.
How can you sit there and think I am arguing a mythical definition? You are saying rights are things that can not be taken away no matter what. By that definition, nothing is a right. If you laugh at it you must just be a closed minded person who can't see the clear logic whether it supports my point or not, there is no such thing as a right if you define it as something that can not be taken away under any circumstance. If you mean something that people SHOULD be allowed to live, then you are talking about a privilege and we are actually on the same page with the term and belief in preservation of life as much as possible for innocent people; you just insist it's a right, not a privilege.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;32784006]In a way, they aren't being off-topic at all.
Here is the OP's post:
The bolded quote above was the main debate. If he can post an [i]example[/i] relating to the debate, then why can't we?[/QUOTE]
Because the premise for asking whether or not rights should be privileges was that the crimes being discussed were cold blooded murders of innocents, where we knew who did it without a doubt and were not concerned with complications of reality. You can put several examples if you like of that, just not ones that pertain to the justice system's inacuracy, accidental murders, etc. as other people have suggested.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32785493]
Because the premise for asking whether or not rights should be privileges was that the crimes being discussed were cold blooded murders of innocents, where we knew who did it without a doubt and were not concerned with complications of reality. You can put several examples if you like of that, just not ones that pertain to the justice system's inacuracy, accidental murders, etc. as other people have suggested.[/QUOTE]
How can we even debate anything when the restrictions are so restricting that anything that disagree's with your view is off-topic? Constantly talking about one side is not a debate, that's not even a discussion. That's a "talk" about a certain subject, in a certain way, when this is exactly this, and that is exactly that. There is literally no room to discuss or debate anything in this thread.
Please do enlighten us, what is it you really want to have the debate about? Give us an example of something we SHOULD say when we're against what you are for, according to your restrictions (or the OP's, I keep mistaking you for him).
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32786096]Please do enlighten us, what is it you really want to have the debate about? Give us an example of something we SHOULD say when we're against what you are for, according to your restrictions (or the OP's, I keep mistaking you for him).[/QUOTE]
Holy hell, you are incredibly incompetent.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32754464]We're debating if they should be privileges, which CAN be taken away.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much you should be debating if Humans Rights shouldn't exist, and should be Human Privileges instead FOR THE PURPOSE of being able to torture terrorists as revenge and for potentially helpful information.
That is pretty much the debate along with the example I provided. It's one thing to derail a little bit, but some pages of this thread is like people putting fucking wings on the train and flying it into the ocean.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32786481]Holy hell, you are incredibly incompetent.
Pretty much you should be debating if Humans Rights shouldn't exist, and should be Human Privileges instead FOR THE PURPOSE of being able to torture terrorists as revenge and for potentially helpful information.
That is pretty much the debate along with the example I provided. It's one thing to derail a little bit, but some pages of this thread is like people putting fucking wings on the train and flying it into the ocean.[/QUOTE]
Every counter argument we provide you just go [I]"off-topic"[/I], [I]"this is a hypothetical thing you retard"[/I],[I] "I dismiss your claim because even though the statistics I used for my example are wrong, and you provided the right ones, the statistics have nothing to do with my claim"[/I].
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32787218]Every counter argument we provide you just go [I]"off-topic"[/I], [I]"this is a hypothetical thing you retard"[/I],[I] "I dismiss your claim because even though the statistics I used for my example are wrong, and you provided the right ones, the statistics have nothing to do with my claim"[/I].[/QUOTE]
Like what? I haven't posted anything for like the last 5 pages, I've just been observing.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32779351]
Case and point... AGAIN. If you would stop being such an ignorant tard and READ what the OP asked. [B]In a situation where someone intentionally killed 50 innocent people should they have humane treatment.[/B] We're not talking about self defense, people who are engaged in militaristic combat, or people that are defending others. You could quite easily easily extrapolate that I support self defense from my opinion so don't be a dumb shit. Start a new thread if you want to talk about self defense.
This thread has become useless now that we have so many of you retards just commenting on off topic things and thinking you're so brilliant for asking what about someone who is killing to protect their lives, which is not what we're talking about, and that executing someone for murder is the same thing as intentionally taking the lives of innocents; which it is impossible to be equal to because we are talking about executing GUILTY murderers, not innocents.....[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I read the thread. If you're going to go around chucking accusations at people left and right that they're 'retards' or 'dumb shits' for not reading, I could easily do the same to you. I've stated repeatedly why I have a problem with your outlined parameters, and the subsequent posts were following that. I clearly stated that prior to the post you're criticizing here, so I'm not the one with the reading comprehension problems.
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32786096]How can we even debate anything when the restrictions are so restricting that anything that disagree's with your view is off-topic? Constantly talking about one side is not a debate, that's not even a discussion. That's a "talk" about a certain subject, in a certain way, when this is exactly this, and that is exactly that. There is literally no room to discuss or debate anything in this thread.
Please do enlighten us, what is it you really want to have the debate about? Give us an example of something we SHOULD say when we're against what you are for, according to your restrictions (or the OP's, I keep mistaking you for him).[/QUOTE]
This, basically.
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32787218]Every counter argument we provide you just go [I]"off-topic"[/I], [I]"this is a hypothetical thing you retard"[/I],[I] "I dismiss your claim because even though the statistics I used for my example are wrong, and you provided the right ones, the statistics have nothing to do with my claim"[/I].[/QUOTE]
And this.
(thanks, mobrockers2)
[editline]15th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32788114]Like what? I haven't posted anything for like the last 5 pages, I've just been observing.[/QUOTE]
I take it he's referring to Mr. America in the past few pages, especially considering he already stated that he gets the two of you mixed-up (I do, too, when I'm not looking at your usernames, because your arguments are extraordinarily similar).
Mr. America all you're doing is slowly coming to the realization that you have no way of defending your ancient and outdated principals of justice so you revert to calling everyone posting about anything other than a single person killing 50 innocent people off topic.
The topic is whether or not human rights are a privilege, stop being childish just because you can't even defend your own opinions against logic and reason.
Once again I will ask you how you think it is safe to give governments the power to decide who is treated as human and who isn't, and how you think you can safely and fairly draw the line at what point someone loses their basic human rights.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32790733]Mr. America all you're doing is slowly coming to the realization that you have no way of defending your ancient and outdated principals of justice so you revert to calling everyone posting about anything other than a single person killing 50 innocent people off topic.
The topic is whether or not human rights are a privilege, stop being childish just because you can't even defend your own opinions against logic and reason.
Once again I will ask you how you think it is safe to give governments the power to decide who is treated as human and who isn't, and how you think you can safely and fairly draw the line at what point someone loses their basic human rights.[/QUOTE]
So, because there were less repeat murders than I thought, but it was still shown that there are repeat murders (just not as many as I assumed) I am suddenly entirely discredited? I don't think so. Any repeat murder is something that could have been prevented. I don't think they're off topic because they disagree I think they're off topic because they aren't within the original parameters. I'd gladly discuss how to go about a death penalty and propose solutions to our present system in another thread, but that was not the goal of this thread. Yet, you still keep asking about why I think its safe to give governments this power, despite the fact that I just a post or two up said my opinion is an unrealistic thing I would never advocate being instilled in a government run by humans. Don't succumb to the same pitfall of some of the other people that have posted by asking my something that I'm not talking about. Or sit there like them and complain that I'm saying you're not talking about what I am (what this thread was targeted at) at all but I'd gladly discuss it in another thread.
Also, I'm pretty sure I have given the MOST logical reason why life is a privilege and not a right because I actually demonstrated how it can be taken instead of saying "no its a right it shouldn't be and can't be, oh wait but it really can be... but still it can't and shouldn't be." There's no logic in that. Provide me with a logical argument how life is a right and I'll agree with you. For now the best explanation has been "because it is". Yet everyone's complaining that I'm not giving reasons... hypocrites.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32790294]Yeah, I read the thread. If you're going to go around chucking accusations at people left and right that they're 'retards' or 'dumb shits' for not reading, I could easily do the same to you. I've stated repeatedly why I have a problem with your outlined parameters, and the subsequent posts were following that. I clearly stated that prior to the post you're criticizing here, so I'm not the one with the reading comprehension problems.[/QUOTE]
If you don't like the parameters of the thread make your own new one. I have no problem discussing other related situations to this topic. This thread just wasn't started for those purposes because my opinion differs on different situations and I don't want people thinking I advocate immediate execution when someone is suspected of murder, as you have all (with some exceptions) falsely extrapolated.
Also, your arguments are quite similar to others yet I take the time to distinguish the differences of you as an individual.. weird differences we have.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32786096]How can we even debate anything when the restrictions are so restricting that anything that disagree's with your view is off-topic? Constantly talking about one side is not a debate, that's not even a discussion. That's a "talk" about a certain subject, in a certain way, when this is exactly this, and that is exactly that. There is literally no room to discuss or debate anything in this thread. Or they tell me I'm sick because I've shown that logically, life is a privilege and somehow think that means I'm saying go torture people; which makes no sense at all.... Then their reason for life being a right is "it just is, we're above that". Which isn't logic.
Please do enlighten us, what is it you really want to have the debate about? Give us an example of something we SHOULD say when we're against what you are for, according to your restrictions (or the OP's, I keep mistaking you for him).[/QUOTE]
You can debate something with such strict restrictions by actually debating what was asked instead of other situations. Such as for example: "I don't think people should be executed even when they kill numerous innocents without a justifiable cause because despite that fact, I think they are still somehow a valuable part to society. Here is the point where you should go on to explain how they are more of a positive force than a negative one despite their action. You would also go on to give any other supporting argument you may have, I don't have many for this position as I clearly don't support it (but this is just an example)."However, no one has given arguments like that, or if they have its been heavily drown out by others just saying I'm stupid because I'm telling them they're off topic or I'm a bloodthirsty son of a bitch because I believe in execution and lack of humane treatment in this particular situation.
We are only consistently talking about one side because people are only picking at my argument and trying to find holes in it instead of justifying theirs through logic, then saying that they think its inhumane/uncivil what not but then turning and saying I'm being emotional but they're not.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32790899]
If you don't like the parameters of the thread make your own new one. I have no problem discussing other related situations to this topic. This thread just wasn't started for those purposes because my opinion differs on different situations and I don't want people thinking I advocate immediate execution when someone is suspected of murder, as you have all (with some exceptions) falsely extrapolated.[/QUOTE]
If we're discussing the philosophical underpinnings of human rights (the title is, after all, 'Should human rights be a privilege?'), then having one extraordinarily static, unrealistic scenario helps absolutely no-one.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32790899]Also, your arguments are quite similar to others yet I take the time to distinguish the differences of you as an individual.. weird differences we have.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, I was responding to someone else.
Also, lol, no you don't. You just reply to people's quotes, like we do to you; your arguments aren't tailored to who I am, just what I write in this. You don't know me individually and argue with me on the basis of my individuality. Of course you don't, and I wouldn't expect you to - it's the fucking internet. But nice try.
lets circle back to the fact that rights are a man-made idea.
if we remove this broad, cultural society of ours and place us in completely natural conditions through which natural selection is constantly happening, you realize that rights don't exist
you couldn't give two fucks about free speech, you're trying to feed yourself and your offspring
the idea only exists in "civilized" society.
its an interpretation
and it all comes back to what you believe in
do I think that humans are naturally given a set of rights at birth? no.
but do I believe that every human deserves an equal playing field for success in society? yes.
do I believe that people in society all deserve certain freedoms? yes.
however, whoever's in power will have the real say-so in whether or not we're given these things.
all we can do is use other ideas to (hopefully) prevent powerful people from taking freedoms and equal opportunity from us.
and with this will come political ideological clashes like that which we see in our governments
[QUOTE=joes33431;32796662]lets circle back to the fact that rights are a man-made idea.
if we remove this broad, cultural society of ours and place us in completely natural conditions through which natural selection is constantly happening, you realize that rights don't exist
you couldn't give two fucks about free speech, you're trying to feed yourself and your offspring
the idea only exists in "civilized" society.
its an interpretation
and it all comes back to what you believe in
do I think that humans are naturally given a set of rights at birth? no.
but do I believe that every human deserves an equal playing field for success in society? yes.
do I believe that people in society all deserve certain freedoms? yes.
however, whoever's in power will have the real say-so in whether or not we're given these things.
all we can do is use other ideas to (hopefully) prevent powerful people from taking freedoms and equal opportunity from us.
and with this will come political ideological clashes like that which we see in our governments[/QUOTE]
Wow this is so deep and edgy
We get it, rights are a manmade construct.
The thing is that because of global treaties and obligations to uphold international laws,
having human rights means that people who break these rules are able to be held accountable.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32797468]Wow this is so deep and edgy
We get it, rights are a manmade construct.
The thing is that because of global treaties and obligations to uphold international laws,
having human rights means that people who break these rules are able to be held accountable.[/QUOTE]
of course. i didn't intend to imply something to the contrary
i wasn't trying to be edgy, just stating the facts
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
