[QUOTE=stupid10er;34420700]except in the grand scheme of things, no living creature has any divine rights.[B] humans are given the rights of the commonwealth they are born in.[/B] your society says that one can lose the right to live. our society says that it is possible. that's like saying i should be punished for breaking a british-exclusive law in the united states. sorry that countries' customs or views aren't universal.[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of the [b]UNIVERSAL[/b] Declaration of Human Rights?
[QUOTE=Terminutter;34420744]Ever heard of the [b]UNIVERSAL[/b] Declaration of Human Rights?[/QUOTE]
A declaration made by humans, which isn't even legally binding.
Giving something a name doesn't alter what it is.
"How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg? Four."
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34420781]A declaration made by humans, which isn't even legally binding.
Giving something a name doesn't alter what it is.
"How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg? Four."[/QUOTE]
What point are you trying to make?
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;34420811]What point are you trying to make?[/QUOTE]
That the difference between "right" and "privilege" is a lie.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34420781]A declaration made by humans, which isn't even legally binding.
Giving something a name doesn't alter what it is.
"How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg? Four."[/QUOTE]
The rights themselves aren't legally binding, but the treaties that they have led to are legally binding.
[url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml[/url]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;34420737]Any society that says that you can lose your right to life has no right to call themselves civilized.[/QUOTE]
of course my man your opinion is the only correct one. sorry for thinking differently!
[editline]27th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Terminutter;34420744]Ever heard of the [b]UNIVERSAL[/b] Declaration of Human Rights?[/QUOTE]
because every country adheres to it, right?
also this
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34420781]A declaration made by humans, which isn't even legally binding.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Terminutter;34420838]The rights themselves aren't legally binding, but the treaties that they have led to are legally binding.
[url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh fair enough then.
That still doesn't say anything about this post:
[quote]except in the grand scheme of things, no living creature has any divine rights. humans are given the rights of the commonwealth they are born in. your society says that one can lose the right to live. our society says that it is possible. that's like saying i should be punished for breaking a british-exclusive law in the united states. sorry that countries' customs or views aren't universal.[/quote]
[editline]27th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;34420737]Any society that says that you can lose your right to life has no right to call themselves civilized.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you intended it, but that's a deliciously recursive statement.
[QUOTE=Croix;34419881]You are contradicting yourself. You already said he would prefer the life sentence.
Despite any of this, killing a person is always killing a person. It would be wrong against anyone, but in this case the man is clearly mentally ill too.
He should get help. He should not be killed.
Even if we removed all other arguments, do you really want to give your government the power to convict people to death?[/QUOTE]
Just because killing is a bad thing doesn't make it not useful. If its the best overall solution then go for it.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34420888]Oh fair enough then.
That still doesn't say anything about this post:
[editline]27th January 2012[/editline]
I don't know if you intended it, but that's a deliciously recursive statement.[/QUOTE]
But you're saying rights have no meaning, Your logic = The basic concept of human rights = superfluous, Therefore you're saying nobody has rights!
[B][U]AND BY THAT LOGIC YOU'RE ALSO SAYING JEWS HAVE NO RIGHTS.
THEREFORE, [I]YOU ARE HITLER![/I][/U][/B]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/Darkfire103/TheHitlerCard.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34420888]Oh fair enough then.
That still doesn't say anything about this post:[/QUOTE]
I would argue that 80% of countries internationally agreeing on human rights is as close as you are going to get to divine given rights, and international rights are universal, so it transcends a particular societies thoughts of it, as it's representing the thoughts and wishes of the vast majority of the human race.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;34420933]But you're saying rights have no meaning, Your logic = The basic concept of human rights = superfluous, Therefore you're saying nobody has rights!
[B][U]AND BY THAT LOGIC YOU'RE ALSO SAYING JEWS HAVE NO RIGHTS.
THEREFORE, [I]YOU ARE HITLER![/I][/U][/B]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/Darkfire103/TheHitlerCard.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
You're begging the question.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34420925]Just because killing is a bad thing doesn't make it not useful. If its the best overall solution then go for it.[/QUOTE]
Well if you really want to look at it that way, the cost of the death penalty process in both time and money assures that it is never the best overall solution.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;34420943]I would argue that 80% of countries internationally agreeing on human rights is as close as you are going to get to divine given rights[/quote]
divine claims require divine justification
[quote]and international rights are universal[/quote]
nope
[quote]so it transcends a particular societies thoughts of it, as it's representing the thoughts and wishes of the vast majority of the human race.[/QUOTE]
hell you contradicted yourself there by saying "vast majority", but even if not, the human race is still a particular society.
I can't even accuse it of being argument from popularity. the people who proposed and wrote and signed the UDHR were for the most part unelected bureaucrats and diplomats, so they don't represent the will of the people at all. it's an argument from authority.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34420925]Just because killing is a bad thing doesn't make it not useful. If its the best overall solution then go for it.[/QUOTE]
Alright then.
My brother has a really nice PC. The best solution overall for me to get it from him would be to kill him. By your logic i am legally in the right.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;34421014]Alright then.
My brother has a really nice PC. The best solution overall for me to get it from him would be to kill him. By your logic i am legally in the right.[/QUOTE]
you've got a skewed concept of "best solution" there
you'd go to prison.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;34421014]Alright then.
My brother has a really nice PC. The best solution overall for me to get it from him would be to kill him. By your logic i am legally in the right.[/QUOTE]
You forgot the part about where your brother broke into your house, violently raped your loved ones, and burned your house down with your family still inside.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34421008]divine claims require divine justification
nope
hell you contradicted yourself there by saying "vast majority", but even if not, the human race is still a particular society.
I can't even accuse it of being argument from popularity. the people who proposed and wrote and signed the UDHR were for the most part unelected bureaucrats and diplomats, so they don't represent the will of the people at all. it's an argument from authority.[/QUOTE]
Surely the diplomats and bureaucrats are appointed by a party who is voted for by the general public, so they do represent the views of the people who voted the particular governments in at the time. I mean, if you choose to vote for a particular party, then you choose to agree with most of their decisions, which means that the diplomats are, to an extent, representatives of your views, as much as any non-elected government official is.
As the majority of countries voted for governments who then appointed diplomats to deal with their views, that can be taken as the majority of each country supports the particular views, in this case international human rights, which are universal as you have the right to them anywhere.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;34421140]Surely the diplomats and bureaucrats are appointed by a party who is voted for by the general public, so they do represent the views of the people who voted the particular governments in at the time.[/quote]
:v:
[quote]I mean, if you choose to vote for a particular party, then you choose to agree with most of their decisions, which means that the diplomats are, to an extent, representatives of your views, as much as any non-elected government official is.[/quote]
:v: :v:
[quote]As the majority of countries voted for governments who then appointed diplomats to deal with their views, that can be taken as the majority of each country supports the particular views, in this case international human rights, which are universal as you have the right to them anywhere.[/QUOTE]
:v: :v: :suicide:
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34421173]:v:
:v: :v:
:v: :v: :suicide:[/QUOTE]
I seriously don't see what I'm missing here, if you vote for a party, you agree with their views, so you agree with what they want and thus want human rights. As the majority votes to bring a party into power, the majority wants the rights.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;34421212]I seriously don't see what I'm missing here, if you vote for a party, you agree with their views, so you agree with what they want and thus want human rights. As the majority votes to bring a party into power, the majority wants the rights.[/QUOTE]
politicians have more in common with each other than to the voters. their preferences are different to voters, and voters have little to no sway in the day-to-day runnings of government. all voters have to go on is campaign promises and previous record, and most don't even bother to research that far. once the election is over, politicians pretty much have free reign. they only need to not be stupid enough to antagonise voters enough that there is a rebellion.
voters were not consulted about whether there ought to be a UDHR
voters were not consulted about what ought to be in the UDHR
voters were not consulted about whether their country ought to sign the UDHR
and if your beliefs [I]exactly[/I] match up with the beliefs of a political party I seriously hope you re-examine. it's overwhelmingly likely that you're a cult-victim in political clothing.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34421297]politicians have more in common with each other than to the voters. their preferences are different to voters, and voters have little to no sway in the day-to-day runnings of government. all voters have to go on is campaign promises and previous record - once the election is over, politicians pretty much have free reign. they only need to not be stupid enough to antagonise voters enough that there is a rebellion.
and if your beliefs [I]exactly[/I] match up with the beliefs of a political party I seriously hope you re-examine. it's overwhelmingly likely that you're a cult-victim in political clothing.[/QUOTE]
I honestly can't tolerate any of our political parties at the moment, labour is apathetic, I will never vote tories and lib dems screwed students over so much I'll not vote for them either. I just mean that agreeing with a political party on a certain topic is the closest thing that you are able to do to agree with something on an international level, as it's impossible to represent billions in a simple way.
I'm clearly being dumb though, so sorry, I'll stop.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;34421344]I honestly can't tolerate any of our political parties at the moment, labour is apathetic, I will never vote tories and lib dems screwed students over so much I'll not vote for them either. I just mean that agreeing with a political party on a certain topic is the closest thing that you are able to do to agree with something on an international level, as it's impossible to represent billions in a simple way.
I'm clearly being dumb though, so sorry, I'll stop.[/QUOTE]
If you really care passionately about an issue, you'll have orders of magnitude more sway compared to a single vote if you actually join a political party and try to influence its policies from the inside. Better yet, a think tank or some other advisory body.
[QUOTE=Cone;34418679]Oh yeah because his sanity was TOTALLY in his own hands
He's just crazy but not crazy somehow![/QUOTE]
I'm sure he could be rehabilitated, the triple-murder-double-rape-plus-arson was just a temporary lack of judgement :downs:
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34418616]Hooray. Now we can waste thousands of dollars on a bloated appeals process instead of just a life sentence without parole.[/QUOTE]
On average, it costs $78 a day to keep one prisoner behind bars for a day, it depends on the state and prison. If it costs $78, that's around $28,000 a year. lets say he lives until he's 80 years old, him alone will cost $1372000, 49 years in prison. There are over 150,000 prisoners that have life imprisonment, over 40,000 with no parole. I don't feel like knowing the exact cost of that.
We need major prison reforms.
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;34418679]Oh yeah because his sanity was TOTALLY in his own hands
He's just crazy but not crazy somehow![/QUOTE]
Mhm, depression is an excuse for murdering a women and her grandchildren, raping one, stealing their money and burning the house down. Flawless logic you got there.
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34419276]An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Killing people to show that killing people is wrong is a hypocritical argument.[/QUOTE]
Not really, they could just overdose him on drugs and be done with it, you think it's gonna feel like being suffocated or strangled? Killing him with drugs is the easy way out for him. It's not hypocritical, and yes, it doesn't show other people that killing it wrong, because people will do it regardless.
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=CatFodder;34419321]Yay! More death, what a just conclusion.
Since when is justice the same as revenge?[/QUOTE]
How about someone kills someone that you love and they get out 20 years later? You obviously don't know what it is like or else you would have a completely different opinion.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;34420979]Well if you really want to look at it that way, the cost of the death penalty process in both time and money assures that it is never the best overall solution.[/QUOTE]
Oh, it could be much better. One bullet costs less than a dollar.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34419446]If you're looking for punishment, then you could debate life sentence is still a more preferable option. Executions are "humane" in that they invoke little to no pain on the criminal. With a life sentence they go the rest of their life with nothing to reflect on but their horrible, stupid decision.[/QUOTE]
Who cares if he reflects on it? While he's in a place where he can't have anything done to him unless other prisoners kill him, innocent people starve in the streets and in other countries, and shit tons of money are spent keeping felons in prison with 3 hot meals a day while people starve in our own country.
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34423921]Oh, it could be much better. One bullet costs less than a dollar.[/QUOTE]
Incoming dumbs for you, KILLING MURDERERS IS BARBARIC.
/sarcasm
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=notxmania;34419871]can the people arguing for the death penalty admit they like it because they think it's badass, and more like the video games and movies they enjoy.[/QUOTE]
No sorry I am a realist and don't like murderers and rapists being alive while many of our own innocent citizens live in poverty and jack shit is being done to help them.
A simple knockout via surgical gas and a bullet to the head would be so much cheaper and easier for people, lethal injection is horribly painful and has so many faulty accidents. A bullet to the head can't really be messed up and is death faster than your brain can even comprehend, much more humane, especially because they'd be asleep.
Some evidence for my argument:
[url]http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=46[/url]
[url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/some-examples-post-furman-botched-executions[/url]
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34423921]Oh, it could be much better. One bullet costs less than a dollar.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter how cheap the actual method for execution is. You could use a 1$ bullet and it would still end up costing more than keeping them for life.
The majority of the cost of the death penalty comes from the cost of the legal process. The only way to fix this is to get rid of all the red tape that prevents the death penalty from being carried out so easily.
And if you think that's a good idea then you are as big of a moron as SpaceGhost is.
Its funny, most of facepunch thinks that everything is related to some stupid ass mental problem. You all do know there are pieces of shit that don't care, right? What are we to do about them since you are all so eager for there to be some way to "help" in some way?
[QUOTE=The one that is;34423986]A simple knockout via surgical gas and a bullet to the head would be so much cheaper and easier for people, lethal injection is horribly painful and has so many faulty accidents. A bullet to the head can't really be messed up and is death faster than your brain can even comprehend, much more humane, especially because they'd be asleep.
Some evidence for my argument:
[url]http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=46[/url]
[url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/some-examples-post-furman-botched-executions[/url][/QUOTE]
lol
Your evidence shows the reason why making the method of execution cheaper won't solve anything.
[url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty[/url]
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34424000]Its funny, most of facepunch thinks that everything is related to some stupid ass mental problem. You all do know there are pieces of shit that don't care, right? What are we to do about them since you are all so eager for there to be some way to "help" in some way?[/QUOTE]
Attempt to rehabilitate them. If they are sane and refuse then keep them locked up.
we all hate the death penalty when it's generalized but love it when we read the stories of people who were killed
make up your minds
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
