[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756551]Therefore, you have no right to deprive me of my privilege of life.[/QUOTE]
I see, so now we DO have certain rights. Life, the thing from which all other rights and privileges derive, is not a right, but a privilege, BUT I can have or not have the [i]right[/i] to deprive you of life? How does that make any sense?
Who determines whether or not you have the privilege of life? Is it the majority of society-at-large? Does that mean that we're totally justified in taking slaves if most people want it?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32756586]I see, so now we DO have certain rights. Life, the thing from which all other rights and privileges derive, is not a right, but a privilege, BUT I can have or not have the [i]right[/i] to deprive you of life? How does that make any sense?
Who determines whether or not you have the privilege of life? Is it the majority of society-at-large? Does that mean that we're totally justified in taking slaves if most people want it?[/QUOTE]
Arguing semantics.. You would not have a reasonable cause to deprive me of my privilege of life.
Everyone has the privilege of life until they have revoked it through some action. No, taking slaves would not be justified because there is no real reason to do that and it would be taking someone else's privilege of right for an inherently bad cause, thus you have revoked your own privilege of life.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756655]Arguing semantics.. You would not have a reasonable cause to deprive me of my privilege of life.
Everyone has the privilege of life until they have revoked it through some action. No, taking slaves would not be justified because there is no real reason to do that and it would be taking someone else's privilege of right for an inherently bad cause, thus you have revoked your own privilege of life.[/QUOTE]
There is also no reason to give governments the authority to determine whether or not it's citizens are granted the privilege of life even though they are already able to have 'life' before the fact that the government can grant the privilege.
Also, the concept is entirely barbaric. Why would I want my government to determine whether or not I can have a human or a subhuman status?
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32756679]There is also no reason to give governments the authority to determine whether or not it's citizens are granted the privilege of life even though they are already able to have 'life' before the fact that the government can grant the privilege.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing about the enforcing of it by a government. I'm discussing theoretically the privileges of people and punishments, not their actual implementations in governments.
He isn't arguing semantics he's basically revealing that past a reactionary, emotional response to crime/terrorism you haven't thought this out at all.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756364]So, someone who takes a family hostage and tortures the kids in front of the parents, kills them then burns the parents alive really deserves to be treated like they're humans? They're dogs, they deserve to die like them.[/QUOTE]
they are humans, like you, like me. they have reasons for what they do, if you were to be in there shoes you might do the same. we are all people trying to live our lives, shaped by experience. you don't stop to ask: why did he kill them, what drove him to. and instead of looking for a solution to the cause, you'd put a band aid over it by just killing them, who's acting like a dog now
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756697]I'm not arguing about the enforcing of it by a government. I'm discussing theoretically the privileges of people and punishments, not their actual implementations in governments.[/QUOTE]
How can you talk about this kind of thing in a purely theoretical way? You keep saying that there is some arbitrary reason to have your privilege to life revoked, but you never explain what that reason ever could be. Because it is so arbitrary that forms a weakness in your argument, anyone can choose any reason to deny privilege to life in your system and be justified.
It seems rather silly to argue about hypothetical situations regarding human rights [I]without[/I] taking governments into consideration as they are the very institutions that make those rights necessary.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32756723]they are humans, like you, like me. they have reasons for what they do, if you were to be in there shoes you might do the same. we are all people trying to live our lives, shaped by experience. you don't stop to ask: why did he kill them, what drove him to. and instead of looking for a solution to the cause, you'd put a band aid over it by just killing them, who's acting like a dog now[/QUOTE]
So, you think that the reason for torturing innocent people can justify saving their life? I should remind you that by innocent that means they have done nothing to that person. If the guy killed his dad because his dad had tortured him then I would agree with you his actions are justifiable. However, the OP asked about people killing innocents in particular; which is the point I am arguing from.
I have given this much thought and have not been presented with any reason why someone who maliciously kills innocents should have their own life preserved. Do you feel that we are just above that? Or that they deserve a second chance to be rehabilitated? So far I have just heard put them away forever, what does that do other than waste resources?
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756655]Arguing semantics.. [/QUOTE]
Doesn't devalue the point, particularly when the semantical distinction of "right" vs. "privilege" is a huge part of the argument.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756655]You would not have a reasonable cause to deprive me of my privilege of life.[/QUOTE]
Unjustified claim
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756655]Everyone has the privilege of life until they have revoked it through some action. [/QUOTE]
What action? Why those actions? Who determines that those are correct?
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756655]No, taking slaves would not be justified because there is no real reason to do that[/QUOTE]
Unjustified claim
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756655]and it would be taking someone else's privilege of right for an inherently bad cause,[/QUOTE]
Inherently bad according to who? What makes them right?
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756655]thus you have revoked your own privilege of life.[/QUOTE]
As unjustified as above.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756755]So, you think that the reason for torturing innocent people can justify saving their life? I should remind you that by innocent that means they have done nothing to that person. If the guy killed his dad because his dad had tortured him then I would agree with you his actions are justifiable. However, the OP asked about people killing innocents in particular; which is the point I am arguing from.
I have given this much thought and have not been presented with any reason why someone who maliciously kills innocents should have their own life preserved. Do you feel that we are just above that? Or that they deserve a second chance to be rehabilitated? So far I have just heard put them away forever, what does that do other than waste resources?[/QUOTE]
how about fixing the problem.
I misused the word "right" yes, the implied meaning was that you had no justifiable reason.
All of my claims are equally justified by my earlier statement that people can do whatever they want until it affects others. It would also be an inherently bad cause because you are taking their privilege for a selfish mean without compliance of the other person.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756755]I have given this much thought and have not been presented with any reason why someone who maliciously kills innocents should have their own life preserved.[/QUOTE]
You also haven't given any reason they should be killed except for irrational emotional justification coupled with baseless claims about who deserves to live.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32756851]how about fixing the problem.[/QUOTE]
That's again another subject, we're just talking about reactionary policies not preventative measures.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756881]All of my claims are equally justified by my earlier statement that people can do whatever they want until it affects others.[/QUOTE]
Justify that.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756881]It would also be an inherently bad cause because you are taking their privilege for a selfish mean without compliance of the other person.[/QUOTE]
And that's bad according to you?
It's badness is not inherent unless it is provable from solid and universal first principles.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
Not to mention that "People can do what they want until it affects others" is inconsistent unless you add the justification of "And if they do then we have cause to break it ourselves" and you offered no reason why the first would imply the second.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32756882]You also haven't given any reason they should be killed except for irrational emotional justification coupled with baseless claims about who deserves to live.[/QUOTE]
They should be killed because they committed a crime of malice and pain against an innocent person who in no way invoked the action, thus making them a victim and the criminal a violent oppressor who deserves to be punished for his/her actions. These punishments should be equal to the crime as much as possible assuming full knowledge of the identity of the perpetrator. I don't see how this is irrational at all? If anything this is the most cold calculating way of balancing the scales.
I don't quite see how my claims of who deserves to live are baseless, I said everyone has the privilege until they decide to revoke it by taking it from someone else for whatever reason they might have. You are completely ignoring my statements and arguments and just saying they are irrational, you have yet to give me any real counter argument. Why do you believe people do not deserve to be killed for murdering innocents? Do they deserve equal punishment? If so, what do you consider to be equal punishment?
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756919]They should be killed because they committed a crime of malice and pain against an innocent person who in no way invoked the action, thus making them a victim and the criminal a violent oppressor who deserves to be punished for his/her actions.[/QUOTE]
Circular argument. "They should be killed because they did something that means they should be killed."
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756919]These punishments should be equal to the crime as much as possible assuming full knowledge of the identity of the perpetrator. I don't see how this is irrational at all? If anything this is the most cold calculating way of balancing the scales. [/QUOTE]
Killing balances the scales against killing? I was under the impression that taking a life + taking a life = taking two lives.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756919]I don't quite see how my claims of who deserves to live are baseless, I said everyone has the privilege until they decide to revoke it by taking it from someone else for whatever reason they might have.[/QUOTE]
What makes that accurate? Why is that what determines whether you have the privilege to life?
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756919]You are completely ignoring my statements and arguments and just saying they are irrational, you have yet to give me any real counter argument.[/QUOTE]
No, you are failing to justify your claims in any way that stands up to even the most casual ethical scrutiny. I don't need to give a counter argument if A) I've made no claim to any ethical position and B) your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756919]Why do you believe people do not deserve to be killed for murdering innocents? Do they deserve equal punishment? If so, what do you consider to be equal punishment?[/QUOTE]
Killing someone for having murdered someone else does nothing to alleviate the original murder. Killing them back fixes nothing, all it does it add to the killing. Psychological rehabilitation attempts to fix the problem instead of destroying the [i]perceived[/i] cause. You don't destroy a car for having malfunctioning brakes, do you?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32756891]Justify that.
And that's bad according to you?
It's badness is not inherent unless it is provable from solid and universal first principles.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
Not to mention that "People can do what they want until it affects others" is inconsistent unless you add the justification of "And if they do then we have cause to break it ourselves" and you offered no reason why the first would imply the second.[/QUOTE]
People can do whatever they want to themselves because they are only affecting themselves and thus are the only ones that need to have comply to the action. Thus, seeing as they are the ones wanting to do whatever it is and they comply with themselves then they can do whatever they want. Justified. It's all based on compliance and violation of lack of compliance.
Try proving to me that taking someone into slavery without their compliance is a good thing.
I assumed you would have understood the implication that the initial violation would justify the breaking of the rules by those in charge of the punishment. The first would imply the second because there has to be a form of punishment and the only alternative to having innocents punish the guilty is to cage the guilty together and let them do it.
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32756971]Circular argument. "They should be killed because they did something that means they should be killed."
Killing balances the scales against killing? I was under the impression that taking a life + taking a life = taking two lives.
What makes that accurate? Why is that what determines whether you have the privilege to life?
No, you are failing to justify your claims in any way that stands up to even the most casual ethical scrutiny. I don't need to give a counter argument if A) I've made no claim to any ethical position and B) your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
Killing someone for having murdered someone else does nothing to alleviate the original murder. Killing them back fixes nothing, all it does it add to the killing. Psychological rehabilitation attempts to fix the problem instead of destroying the [i]perceived[/i] cause. You don't destroy a car for having malfunctioning brakes, do you?[/QUOTE]
It's not a circular argument to say that someone should be killed for committing a crime that killed people when one feels that equal punishment is proper.
Killing the offender balances the scales against that criminal. In terms of loss of life, you are correct there are 2 dead. In terms of that person, they took one life so they consequently lose theirs to punish what they have done.
A crime that takes someone life is what determines you losing your privilege of life because we are talking about a system of equivalent punishment.
A strongly based scrutiny would be to give a reason against what I am arguing instead of just saying "why is that so or you have no basis", when in fact I have a basis and instead you should be asking what basis I am going off of. Instead of claiming I do not have one without backing up your statement with a counter argument.
Execution does not bring the victim back to life that is correct, but it removes a violent element from society that has irrevocably damaged it. If you are making an argument that we should attempt psychological rehabilitation and second chances that is your own opinion. However, you should also consider the possibility of a repeat offense.
The following is statistics based on felonies, which our government considers to be the worst kind and grounds for repealing many privileges afforded to US citizens. (Generally violent crimes).
"During Calendar Year 2004, Washington courts entered
28,076 adult felony sentences. Approximately 80% of
the offenders were male and 61.5% of the sentences
involved offenders who had a history of one or more
prior offenses (Table 1)"
[url]http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_Cy04.pdf[/url]
I don't think I have ever seen so many fallacious and circular arguments in a while.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;32757055]I don't think I have ever seen so many fallacious and circular arguments in a while.[/QUOTE]
Care to show how the arguments are circular instead of taking JohnnyMo1's strategy of just claiming and not properly showing it?
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32756984]
It's not a circular argument to say that someone should be killed for committing a crime that killed people when one feels that equal punishment is proper.
[b]Killing the offender balances the scales against that criminal. In terms of loss of life, you are correct there are 2 dead. In terms of that person, they took one life so they consequently lose theirs to punish what they have done.[/b]
[b]A crime that takes someone life is what determines you losing your privilege of life because we are talking about a system of equivalent punishment.[/b]
A strongly based scrutiny would be to give a reason against what I am arguing instead of just saying "why is that so or you have no basis", when in fact I have a basis and instead you should be asking what basis I am going off of. Instead of claiming I do not have one without backing up your statement with a counter argument.
Execution does not bring the victim back to life that is correct, but it removes a violent element from society that has irrevocably damaged it. If you are making an argument that we should attempt psychological rehabilitation and second chances that is your own opinion. However, you should also consider the possibility of a repeat offense.
The following is statistics based on felonies, which our government considers to be the worst kind and grounds for repealing many privileges afforded to US citizens. (Generally violent crimes).
"During Calendar Year 2004, Washington courts entered
28,076 adult felony sentences. Approximately 80% of
the offenders were male and 61.5% of the sentences
involved offenders who had a history of one or more
prior offenses (Table 1)"
[url]http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_Cy04.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
So now you're trying to turn this into a death penalty debate.
I really didn't think I'd have to do this....again, but here's more Penn and Teller.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntitiiLotk[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKSV9F_-VdU[/media]
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32757097]Care to show how the arguments are circular instead of taking JohnnyMo1's strategy of just claiming and not properly showing it?[/QUOTE]
All you have done is said your opinion and use hypothetical situations to push your argument, The only evidence you have brought up so far has very little to do with your argument (there are more types of felonies than just murder). When people ask you to explain what you are saying, to make your argument less vague you just keep saying the same thing like people who do bad things should not have their privilege to life.
The closest definition to "bad" you have said is killing murderers, but you fail to take into fact that our justice system is not perfect and that the death penalty serves no purpose except as a means of vengeance.
I'd agree with those videos that the death penalty and our government is not 100% efficient, it does not deter further crimes from other criminals, but it did effectively show that violent criminals are repeat offenders; showing that the death penalty will keep them off the streets and prevent them from murdering again while in jail. The most compelling argument is the one that "we are above violence" and we should not bloody our own hands. However, clearly (and regrettably) we are not because we still are haunted by violent criminals despite our technological advances. The problems we have today are the same problems that have existed in the human race for hundreds of years, there is no (so far) a highly effective way of deterring these crimes. The most we can do is guarantee they do not happen again once someone has committed them.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Valnar;32757380]All you have done is said your opinion and use hypothetical situations to push your argument, The only evidence you have brought up so far has very little to do with your argument (there are more types of felonies than just murder). When people ask you to explain what you are saying, to make your argument less vague you just keep saying the same thing like people who do bad things should not have their privilege to life.
The closest definition to "bad" you have said is killing murderers, but you fail to take into fact that our justice system is not perfect and that the death penalty serves no purpose except as a means of vengeance.[/QUOTE]
Have you actually read everything I've said? It's a hypothetical question, so I gave a hypothetical response. Want a real response for a real crime? Give me one. My argument is based off of personal theory, I don't think I need evidence to prove that the death penalty stops people from committing further murders. The felonies statistic was just to show that there should also be a consideration of recurring offenders.
I have also taken into the fact that our system is not perfect etc., if you had read all my posts you would have seen that.
So we have to assume a perfect system with no corruption where is impossible for mistakes to be made and every decision is just so people can be executed as soon as they commit murder then?
And also ignore the fact that judicial systems focusing on rehabilitation and restorative justice (of which the US isn't) are effective.
'But flyschy rehabilitation doesn't always work!'
Well lets assume a perfect system with no corruption where all criminals are able to be rehabilitated effectively and re-integrated in society with absolutely no problems then. I mean it's only hypothetical right?
[QUOTE=flyschy;32757735]So we have to assume a perfect system with no corruption where is impossible for mistakes to be made and every decision is just so people can be executed as soon as they commit murder then?
And also ignore the fact that judicial systems focusing on rehabilitation and restorative justice (of which the US isn't) are effective.
'But flyschy rehabilitation doesn't always work!'
Well lets assume a perfect system with no corruption where all criminals are able to be rehabilitated effectively and re-integrated in society with absolutely no problems then. I mean it's only hypothetical right?[/QUOTE]
The system implementing the rules doesn't matter as this is just a theoretical debate about the ethics of punishment, with no consideration of the governing body or whatever it is that would be enforcing it.
From your standpoint that the person was able to be fully rehabilitated I would think or at least hope that they would have wanted themselves to be fully punished instead of rehabilitated after they are able to fully grasp what they have done with a level and civilized mind. Even still, rehabilitation for a mass murderer is not deserving in my opinion because that person has again revoked any help for what they've done. I don't think it would be morally correct.
If I personally committed such an act in an altered state of mind (as I would never do such with my present mind) I would prefer that my life were taken. I'd even prefer that they not keep me in jail for years while I sit on death row or spend the money on a lethal injection; just pay $1 for a .308 Winchester round and put it through my head. I think that's pretty humane, you could even rig it up to remote trigger so no one has to feel bad by pulling the trigger themselves. (since you all have been preoccupied with how the penalty comes about, this was a small example. I cost the state perhaps a $402 starting fee for a rifle and some string to pull the trigger and $1 for the bullet. Almost no cost to the society, I'm gone and incapable of hurting anyone else again, and punishment has been served for what I did).
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32762573]since you all have been preoccupied with how the penalty comes about, this was a small example. I cost the state perhaps a $402 starting fee for a rifle and some string to pull the trigger and $1 for the bullet. Almost no cost to the society, I'm gone and incapable of hurting anyone else again, and punishment has been served for what I did.[/QUOTE]
That's not punishment, that's euthanasia.
It's the easiest way out and that's not the point.
I understood under that example that you can kill all you like and "just" have to die yourself in the end.
I always liked George Carlin's argument on rights.
[Media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otp2UGH32Rw[/media]
Personally I can't think of a right you have that can be taken away other than freedom of thought.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32754504]If exceptions are made for human rights violations, where exactly do we draw the line?[/QUOTE]
Mass murder or religiously motivated acts perhaps...
[QUOTE=znk666;32765571]Mass murder or religiously motivated acts perhaps...[/QUOTE]
why
As I stated in the OP, I think Human RIGHTS should be Privileges. As in, changing the name so they can be revoked WITHIN reason.
So, when you're taken into custody for mass murder, you would lose the privilege of not being tortured and other things that human rights laws prohibit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
