• Leader of global child abuse images ring battered to death in prison
    63 replies, posted
I disagree with this especially because of wrongful convictions being a real thing because cops are corrupt bastsrds and can plant evidence This still doesn't change the fact this fucker here was a pedophile and profited from the rape of children though.
Why do all humans deserve rights?
Because we're not barbarians.
Not an argument. Also barbarians were human
This is a shitty gimmick account
All humans deserve rights because it is the current year.
All humans are valueless because I listened to lithium by nirvana
Im not even familiar with the song but i dont believe anybody here will formulate a reasonable argument about why ALL humans deserve rights that is not just a circular argument or appeal to emotion
Oh no, a semantics argument. Bottom of the bucket tier. Every human being deserves human rights because we shouldn't live in a world where we can say "I get rights, but you don't". If I should have to explain to you why, I might also need to explain why murder = bad. It's a matter of morality, and you can't strike that down with "but a pedophile isn't moral". You're right, and pedophilia is disgusting, horrific, and traumatising - at no point in my life will I defend a pedophile's actions, but I also won't demand that we kill them. You can swat away "two wrongs don't make a right" as much as you want, but I'll always stand by it. It's apparent that you don't, and I don't think any argument will change that.
Well this was a murder, but it wasn't bad. So not all murder is bad. You've just presented another argument using circular reasoning. So i guess you will have to explain to me why ALL murder is bad
"Not all murder is bad" You said that. That's a thing you just said. Does this only apply to murder, or do you think "not all rape is bad" too? Genuine question.
It's not a subject ive thought about a lot but I cant think of any situations in which rape is good. Is an abused child murdering his abuser bad? What about a battered wife who murders her husband? Are these bad murders?
A battered wife who murders her husband is a recognised defence in law [In English law, so take it with a grain of salt]. It's called battered wife syndrome. Is it a bad murder? Yes, because there is no 'good' murder. I understand the wife's reasoning, and I sympathise, but I would not agree with the murder itself. Same goes for an abused child. Will I hold an abuse victim that kills their abuser to the same level of 'criticism' (very iffy word, but i can't think of a better word) as I would a prisoner killing a pedophile? No, but there'll be 'criticism' from me nonetheless.
So this brings us back to square one. The reason I believe not all murder, like the examples I've mentioned/this article is i believe the world has become a better place from them being removed from it, logically. They will no longer consume resources or have another chance to hurt another person. With leaving them to rot in a cell they will continue to consume and there is a chance they could either be released, or escape, and go on to do further harm. I feel that you have not explained to me why you believe all murder is bad without just basically saying "because its bad".
There's only so far down the hole we can go before we hit the bottom, and I think we're very much there already. I think all murder is bad because I believe every single human being deserves human rights, and I don't see human rights as something that can be lost or taken away, with absolutely zero exceptions. You can't criticise violence if you then turn around and kill someone as a punishment. If to which you ask "yeah, but why?", the answer is because that's my opinion. It's like asking "Why do you prefer Red over Blue?", I respond "Because I think Red looks nicer", only for you to say "Yeah, but why?".
Probably better to be here now than 10 pages in. Have a good day brodie thanks for the discussion.
"Christian Maire, a married father-of-two" What absolute fucking scum you have to be to have children and still do something like this.
So long as false convictions have any chance at happening, there shouldn't be a death penalty for this very reason. Or such shit security that prisoners get murdered while they're in the care of the prison system.
This is worse than the death penalty in that it is extreme negligence in the care of someone who was not sentenced to death. If the government is going to put someone in prison, and force them to give up all responsibility for their own life, the government has the absolute responsibility to care for said person properly. You shouldn't be able to be murdered in prison. That's no better than the government just executing people itself.
morals aren't universal
Usually people like this are placed separately from genpop. Usually.
if you can't back up your opinions with anything other than "its my opinion" then your opinions aren't worth listening to or sharing
All moral statements rely on assumed axioms. There's no such thing as objective morality.
All Murder is bad because no one is born with the right to choose to kill regardless of whatever 'pragmatic' ethical code you follow. I seriously can't believe any of you guys have read nice fellas argument and found it to be satisfactory, we're dealing with someone who uses pragmatism as a veil for sociopathic behavior.
you can back up reasoning behind morality. people aren't against murder merely because it is bad, but because murder is a threat to them and the stability of their society, same with theft. arguing purely from morality without any other backing than the morality itself is no different than arguing purely from religion without no backing than the religious texts themselves.
If we want pedophiles to be executed we shouldnt be doing it in a round about way by relying on a broken prison system. The ruling is against the death penalty, which means we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than "accidentally" getting people killed.
there is no difference between this argument and "all murder is bad because 'thou shalt not kill' is commandment VI"
Right, of course. I can argue that, if you care about your safety and quality of life, you should adopt a moral system that protects you from harm. And I can argue that the best system for that purpose is one that gives people certain rights on the basis of the importance of people themselves, since that protects you from having your own rights revoked by others. What can't be argued for is why people deserve rights or not. It's an assumption that you adopt because you care about yourself, and because you want other people to care about you, and you don't want your own rights to be given or taken arbitrarily.
Looking the other way while inmates die from neglect, by murder or other factors, because you find them especially repulsive is entirely missing the point, and I really hope that none of you winnering this claim to want prison reform, because that'd just be hilariously ironic. First, There's always the concern about killing someone for a crime they didn't actually commit. The article doesn't really say enough about his case, so I can't even guess at this one, and I'm guessing you can't either unless you've gone and done research I'm not aware of. If this guy turned out to be not guilty of this, perhaps framed for it, I really don't think the people here would be laughing it up and high-fiving eachother over his murder. Second, while there may be times where violent action is necessary, the lines on those cases are heavily blurred wherever they happen, and this isn't one of those cases. Take for example the victim of horrible abuse killing their abuser. Would I criticize them for it? Maybe, but it would depend on the case. Abusers will fuck with their victims' minds until they can't tell which way is up, and many of them are brainwashed into utter helplessness. In cases like those, I really don't think they should themselves see prison time, instead they should be placed in psychiatric care for long enough to help them get back out into the real world and to make sure they're reasonably stable(The US healthcare system is woefully ill-equipped for this, but that's a gripe for another time). Whoever did this was not his victim, wasn't under duress by him, and was under no threat by him. They just decided they were going to take a moral stand against someone who was already serving 40 years by murdering him. He's not a hero, he's a scumbag who picked an "acceptable target". Third, and probably most importantly, I'm not going to celebrate how fucked our prison system is, sorry. These cases raise damning concerns for the state of our penal system, you absolutely should not be looking the other way, or encouraging this shit in any way. Any preventable death of an inmate is a de-facto execution without trial by the government. Was he intentionally neglected? We'll never know, that's why it happens. That's why tyrannical despots will totally send people they don't like to prison where it's safe and then, oopsie, he died somehow, gee whiz, what a shame. If you give a shit about the rule of ethical and just law, you can not abide by this shit for a second, because if you do, you are playing with fire by enabling extra-judicial punishment by neglect. Fourth, and maybe this is more subjective, but the prison system should not be based on pure punishment, but rehabilitation. There is no justification for this act. You can say he definitely won't be victimizing kids again, and you'd be technically correct, but he had 40 years on his sentence. He wasn't going to anyway for at least 40 years. You could say that he just can't be trusted with a pulse, but if he can't, where do you draw the line? Where should the killing of people you don't trust stop? Wherever it is, why stop there? Should murderers be killed because we can't trust them not to murder again? Should drunk drivers who hit pedestrians be killed because we can't trust them to not run over pedestrians again? What is the point of having a rehabilitative system if it's great when people aren't rehabilitated and given another chance, but just murdered instead? I often hear "it'll serve as a deterrent for other pedos" Citation needed. Numerous studies into deterrent effect have come to the same conclusion: The deterrent effect plateaus pretty fucking quickly in relation to severity of punishment. What factors far more into actual deterrence is how likely the criminal thinks he is to get caught. And finally, dehumanizing prisoners(which this is) is the primary cultural stumbling block to actual reform. It's been so fucking hard to move the needle on this issue because of this very attitude that these people are less than human, and basically fuck them for wanting a prison system that isn't wrought with violence, abuse, and neglect. Until we do away with this notion that you lose your right to be considered human when you commit serious crimes, the fight for prison reform will be a steeply uphill battle that can not ultimately be "won" without subverting the will of the people outright.
Or maybe most people believe in a common good, one that's been a foundation for human society for a very long time and who's detractors have only served to hurt our society? This is a whole lot of pussyfooting around the core idea that some of you seem to believe that the right to live is very loose and it's okay that random people take it into their power to revoke it, which is a very worrying thing that singles out whoever believes it as a potential threat to common well being
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.