Rakasha

I don't think I touched the subjects that you mention, and I did'nt address your post, so I guess there is some confusion here I find that strange. To me, if Peterson is executed later he will still end up with the same sentence that will carry the same results.

Seconded. I think this is the most important thing to consider in this debate, that whether or not you consider that life is invaluable, it does not relate to society's decisions. The problem is, society must evaluate life and it does so constantly. Each time it make a decision concerning safety mesures or medical cares, it put a value on life. How can a society work it out if it takes decisions based on a definite value for living people, but consider invaluable the life of murdered individuals ? Dead people being infinitely more important than live one = insane, in my modest opinion.

I see a problem with those sites. You are talking of the abusive form of the ad hominem fallacy as a pseudo-logical argument. That's not the case. I never claimed that blike did an argumentum ad hominem (purely illogical statement), I said he had made an ad hominem comment (comment meant to attack personally for the purpose of discrediting me). I'm afraid that when I said that post #43 seemed likely to be a response to post #42, it was mistaken for a claim that it was a counter-argument. This is what I am talking about. Now, if you read post #43, only the first sentence is on topic. The rest comes out of the blue. Since it is a comparison between my opinions and blike's and my opinions are attributed the qualities ¨hypocritical¨ and ¨contradicted¨, I saw that as negative enough to be suspected that the purpose of the post was that of an ad hominem. This is why I then said the the two words ¨ad hominem¨ in a funny manner. Am I vomiting words of madness ?

Hum, something seems odd when backing up the capital penalty with this logic. I sense a problem caused by the method of repayment. If the punitive laws were simply about retribution, then whipping would be easier than incarceration. Bad deeds = pain, at it's simplest form. But the current price of serious crimes are your days among society. We could see it as criminals ending up losing some of the benefits of the social contract. Their crime revoked x days of enjoying society and such. But one can't lose more than all the benefits of the social contract. If we consider murder to cost an infinitely long period of life among society, the result is that the person cannot live in society again. Based on the current scheme, we'd be looking at life incarceration as the ultimate price, it seems to me. Cool, then to finnish this matter once and for all, could you point me to any source presenting those criteria ? I have searched and searched to no avail, it seems. Everywhere I looked, an ad hominem described a comment which's attacked a person. Was I mislead ?

No, no, I am talking of the right to allow capital punishment. I'm pretty sure that the state can do it's job without this right. The government of Canada do it's job rather well. Denying it this right would'nt make a difference. Thus, Canada does'nt need it, it seems to me. But several countries oppose the death penalty. Then, not all law systems are based on the same thing. Why would basing a country's law on justice be the best thing to do ? Ah, then I guess I was confused. Then, would you still support the death penalty if it sent no message at all ? Or if it sent a negative message ? Yeah, first, sorry for the exagerated criticism. About my belief, I though I said it: I believe that the purpose of a governing body is to ensure social cohesion and nothing more. In that sense, the state only does what is needed to be done. I don't see any good reason to apply capital punishment.

Sayonara, I already attemped to justify myself several time. And I clearly mean to continue. I even suggested a better way to do so without disrupting the thread. No, I am not a forum ninja trying to ¨sneak out with a PM¨ and ¨draw attention away¨. Talk about it, reach an understanding, make the content public in one post. This is what I proposed. It still make this publically accountable. Only without useless spam. Discerning an ad hominem consist of personally judging if it was likely that a comment's purpose was to present the adversity in a bad light to attack his arguments. That means there can't be a proof that I'm right and there can't be a proof that I'm wrong. It's like arguing about how something gray is more black than white. I already said why I saw the hint of an A.H. in post #52. Anyway, it seemed it was a misunderstanding after all. That's pretty much all there is to this.

Meh, I already PMed Sayonara and invited him to discuss personally about anything I ever posted in a manner that does'nt disrupt the thread. He has obviously refused. Yep, I also invited him to have the last post in thread in case he was concerned that the public should'nt be lead to believe that I had the last word. Yes, it belongs in PMs since it is obviously only us two talking. You are even asking people to not ¨butt in¨ , so yes, that is is a personal discusion. And... Sigh. No. This discussion does not relate to my position in thread. No, this discussion has nothing to do with the death penalty. Yes, if we conclude that I should apologize in public, I will. Is this reasonable ?

I was the subject of his unimportant and now infamous post. Why, yes. You are undoubtly implying that I'm asking to take this off-thread so I don't ¨lose my face¨. I clearly said that the discussion for this had no place in the thread and it is true. I clearly said that the results of this discussion, if there were, could be re-inserted in thread at your wishes. Thus, I clearly said that taking this discussion off-thread does'nt mean avoiding responsability. No, you clearly have no reason to wish this to continue in thread. So any reply, for the sake on this thread, should go on pm. The two sentences do not follow. Each of my post concerning this ridiculous matter were answers to requests of clarification. Mostly from you. And you are again making it seems like it is my fault that the thread is being derailed. No, it is not. I clearly suggested again and again, from the start, that this should be looked at separetly. Also, no, saying that I started this matter does'nt mean that it cannot be true if I claim you to be provocateur. Eh, I never claimed that anyway. Now, let's chill and spell the words of love

I'm pretty sure he insinuated that my opinion were that of a contradicted mind, which is anormal. ¨You're running away !¨. No. This has been blown out of proportion and yet I answered all the requests for clarification. If I had attemped to shift out because I did'nt feel like I could back myself up, it would have shown long ago. It's not cool to accuse someone of trying to run away. I clearly meant that this has no place on this thread and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Again, if anything more has to be discussed, it should be on pm. This thread has already suffered enough. If you absolutely want me to lose face for some reason, then go ahead, let's continue on pm and then when we're done, go in here and say ¨The guy lost¨. Now maybe the main point I highlighted in this thread can be addressed: why must a government send a message via the death penalty ? The only answer received was that a government must do so to be just. Does it mean that governments that does'nt send those messages, such as Canada's, are injust ?

Oh, by the same side comment I was'nt implying some sort of debate. I meant that we seems to share the same point of view about the importance of where the line is drawn. My point was just that a line should be founded on a general idea and ignore rare particuliar situation where feeling are'nt quite happy with the outcome. It's law based on principles, even if it feels that some of the thefts are rather ok and some of the abortions are rather not. That is, theft is punished the same even if this one time the old man only needed some food to survive. The same way, abortion should be based on a general idea concerning the more than a million normal procedures that happens each year, putting aside the less than 3000 procedures that may feels bad (partial abortions). That's taking the U.S figures as an example. But I agree with you about the shade of grey and I'm starting to reconsider my position. Partly because it would be for the best to avoid partial abortions and the deterring value of a law sometimes is more important than punishing some indecisive mother who waited too long.

I never made a huge deal out of it. I just meant to say that the purpose of the post 43 seems likely to be founded on a vapid ad hominem. All that, I already said, because I find hard to believe the huge coincidence that instead of answering a request of clarification, post 43 was one sentence on subject then all about why blike's point of view is normal and mine is incomprehensible and hypocritical. I don't know if that's normality around here. I'm not making a huge deal out of it, and I don't care much. That's why I suggest we either agree to disagree, either we conclude that I'm a wierdo or either we simply continue on pm. This has no place on the thread.

If his post was an answer to my arguments, then it was indeed targetting the arguments by targetting me personally. You are arguing that his personal attack was'nt clearly a response to what I said earlier. Let's have a simplified look : Rak: Dude, I think your arguments are wrong. Blk: RAKASHA SUX. Rak: What ? Blk: Oh, It was a totally unrelated answer, a huge coincidence really. It's purpose was'nt to put aside your arguments, even if I did purposely lie about you and even if there are thousands of members to quote. That is why I claimed an Ad Hominem. Again, if you can say that his post was'nt obviously related to mine then I am wrong. End of the story.

I have the feeling that the death penalty is, in some way, a vestige of ancient governments. When the government is not representative of the population, such as in a dictature, it must enforce it's grasp of power by some kind of means. In most case, the governing body will claim that it came to power by natural rights and that it is immoral to doubt it's legitimity. Thus the government claim to be a moral entity. In that case, to keep it status it must show that anybody violating it's law is immoral. Result: criminals are punished. But in a modern democracy, the government is'nt claiming moral superiority. It's concern is social cohesion by representation. It's the social contract kind of government, you hold your end of the contract and you reap the benefits. Progressive jail time is a good way to ensure respect for the law. It's does not mean that the government revendicate morality. However, death penalty does simply because it is not needed. We still call ¨justice¨ the law system concerning crimes but I guess it's just an old habit. You did not. To demonstrate that it was not an Ad Hominem ( a personal attack to discredit me) you must prove either that is was not a personal attack, either that it was not meant to discredit me. If you are trying to refute the second, I'd give you little luck. What are the odds that I am mentionned, right after my post, out of 3,400 members, as an example of somebody totally twisted and stuff, in an post that is unrelated. And I mentioned the fake anonimity bit, you needlessly quoted what I said on the same thread, thus you were not trying to hide my identity. Let's chill and be pal and forget this.

I think you misunderstood me, are'nt we on the same side then ? What I meant was that there must be a strong reason to draw a line at a certain place. Ruling out abortions in the middle of pregnancy has one basic: ¨it's not ok because the fetus looks too much like a human¨. I'm saying that this kind of judgement cannot be translated into a stance, or into a law. It would be the same as saying that one should do what he wants because personal feelings prevails.

Then I guess the difference is that I see great importance in where the line is drawn It would be great to put the line around half of the pregnancy, in term of my personal feeling. But I don't want to see law based on personal feelings. It would kinda send the message that something is moral if it seems ok to you. We'd have all kind of problems concerning the interpretation of law. I mean, some homicides and some thefts may seems damn right to you, but the law still condemn 'em all. Because it put aside personal feelings. If it did'nt, we'd have some big troubles.

Just curious, are you arguing that post 43 was'nt an Ad Hominem because: -It was not clear that it attacked me personally. -It was not clear that it attacked me personally to justify that I was wrong. I guess that it is the later. Then, what are the odds that he happened to put me down and ignore me at the same time ? If you somehow consider that there is no relation between his dismissal of my arguments and his personnal attack on me, then I am guilty Concerning social contracts (adressed by Blike's post number 68): It seems to me that social contracts only covers ¨agree to the rules of society and you will have the benefits of society¨. It does'nt incorporate ¨violate the rules and you will be killed¨. Nor does it cover ¨we must broadcast messages about the value of life to show we care¨.

Yup, I completely agree with Phi for all. Of course I would be bitter at a murderous birth. I have some feelings But the problem is, there are no black and white cases in abortion and yet we are confronted to a black and white decision (kill it or not). We have to make a general decision concerning civil rights, whether some situations will be rather hard and bring tears. In my opinion, it's not ok for someone to only allow some abortions; it's kinda like having no basic of judgement. The rights must be decided to come either at conception, either at birth.

I agree with Phi, we should'nt make as little abortions as possible or none at all. But it's not my right to stop other people. Actually, same here . I just though it was a good analogy since most of the forum goers should be concerned by this law. And it's the kind of law everbody is familiar with. About the parasite argument, yep, parasite is an ugly word. But it's not simply because of the bad connotation of the word that I base my argument. I just think that for a baby to be an individual and have the rights of an individual, it must at last have it's own natural vital fonctions. That's what I mean by naturally born. Well, the problem is, how about 8 months ? 4, 2, 1 months ? Before it is conceived ? In my opinion, if you take into consideration that a pregnancy must be protected by rights because of it's future, then you must consider that not making a baby is a crime. That just can't be. The future of a pregnancy, even if we're talking one week, should be irrelevant. Naah, not exactly. My point of view is that the baby is an individual when it has basic vital functions. That happens at his birth. But abortion during the birth ? That's quite blured and borderline, so it's impossible to be absolutly right about the morality. By default, I'd stay on the same side and say that the birth must be fully completed for the baby to be able to live on it's own.

Well, I'm not sure if it is an important issue. I mean, suicide is'nt really denied to them. I believe it is their opinion that prevails on whether they would rather die. Should jails incorporate a suicide booth ? hummm...

That's a rather harsh thing to say. Are you willing to claim a coincidence ? I mean, right after I questioned his logic, he insinuated in an unrelated post that I am an hypocrite, an extremist, a baby killer, a supporter of serial killers and a an uncomprehensible person of contradicted nature. Man, I think it is reasonable to say that it was indeed in the nature of an A.H. Moreso: He quoted out of context my not exactly serious comment about puncturing a baby's head. In context, it was a simply some bad humor paired with my statement that, in some moral question, one must put aside some of his feelings. Simply because something is not necessary immoral because it is disturbing when confronted in person. Being in favor of death row, he is fully aware of what I mean. Yet he (needlessly) quoted this joke comment that obviously mislead any reader to conclude that I have no feelings. Also, he presented me as being completely sure of myself in the case of a borderline situation concerning abortion (partial abortion during natural birth). Yet I stated, in another thread, that such a case was blured and indeed borderline moral to me by default. No, there's no denying that he purposedly and falsely portraited me as an extremist. True, he did not put in my name. He simply put in my formal introduction line on this thread. He could have, you know, not quoted me since it makes me completely recognizable. Plus, censorship imply that something is bad. It's like he shot a video, blured my face and talked about my twisted nature. Definitively negative. Not that anonymity is negative, but faking it sure is. Meh, not that I'm making a huge deal of it. There's is'nt much more to say about this. zzz It's cool, pal, nobody's pants are on fire. But I am guilty of badly starting this discussion so I have a recomendation : let's not get in a quote fight of epic proportion. We can keep it simple. Here: I live in Canada and we do not apply the death penalty. Can you make a list of one sentenced reason about why we are wrong and why we should start killing some of our inmates ?

Oh my, I edited my post above for some clarity before realising that it was answered and quoted. Well, you know, it's late... Of course. You were asked why the state had the right to kill. Your answer was that it was for the same reason that it can incarcerate, that means, because it have special rights to do it's job. I meant to answer that the state should only possess the rights that it needs, and it does'nt need the right to kill harmless persons. 1- Appeal to tradition ? 2- Grrr, I have some beef with the way you always mention a justice system to prove your point that justice is naturally the purpose of the law system. Of course this sentence it's right, how could a justice system be formed on anything else than justice ? The problem is... I don't think the law IS a social justice system. Not anymore, not in a modern society. And I was pointing that this is'nt an acceptable argument. You cannot claim that the law MUST be based on justice because it seems to be currently the case. Hum, about what you said earlier... You wrote as an argument for C.P. that it is useful to send a message. I'm happy to see that you take back this claim. Could you clarify ? The same argument can be used against C.P. because of the possiblity of a false conviction. Ad hominem, youpi-dou-yay-yay.

I'm against capital punishment on all acount. I'm interrested in Blike's post, since he gave all the reason that someone pro-CP could give. Killing people that were dangerous but are'nt anymore is not needed. The state can't have this right just because it have other special rights. Right ? Call me an idealist, but I always though that the purpose of jail was to put dangerous people aside until they are socially rehabilated. My point of view : Law = for social cohesion. Justice = to punish immorality. thus, the law is not about justice. ¨Justice is the purpose of law, because law is based on justice.¨ Let me suggest whipping. It seriously seems a better punishment than incarceration. I see little light in this reasoning. Most of those arguments assume that the governement must send those moral messages (yet a government is amoral) and it cannot do it any other way. I don't think that the deterring effect is strong enough to be mentionned. Hum, the same can be said against capital punishment. Fixed ! My opinion is that if a dangerous person has been disabled, there is no reason to pointlessly slay this person.

You lost me there, pal. Why is the baby different ? He's hooked to the body at the same level that the hand. You mean, they CAN take place at 9 months and such and such. That rather demonizing the method by presenting only it's borderline possible situation. Anyway, I don't see a good reason to change my opinion. In my mind, the baby must be born naturally to start being considered a person. Until then, the baby is being nurtured and it's creation process is'nt over. I don't think it makes the baby any less dependent to claim that it could be extracted and kept alive. If it does'nt come of it's own, it's nature is still of a parasite. Terminology question : I always though that a incubating baby was called a foetus. Since we are'nt using the same words, can you fill me in with a better definition ? ¨No practical difference¨... Can't accept this argument. That's saying that the fetus possess the baby's rights because it looks like one and will soon be one. It's still considering what the baby could be if it was born, and not making a baby still is'nt a crime. Plus, this ¨no practical difference¨ is quite a slippery. I mean, having sex with a person aged of 17 years and 364 days is still illegal. Yet, after one day, there will be no practical difference concerning the person.

I see your point of view. That's a rather strange way to put it. I considered that as long as the baby was not fully delivered, the pregnancy was not completed. You're saying that the baby could be extracted and survive. Well... I mean, I could use modern science to cut your hand and keep it alive separately. That's kinda saying that your hand is not part of your body. But I see your point of view. To be correct, are'nt you saying that it's forcefully partially delivered when it's still actually still dependand ? Or are you only talking of PBA during the natural birth ? It seems to me like an attempt to establish the basic of a law that deny abortions rights. - First, put in use a law that gives rights to a fetus as a human beings but is only negative to killers. Everybody accept because it's a law that punish killers. - Then, put in use a law that give overal rights to a fetus. - Then put in use a law that deny abortion rights. Then the governement, who clearly do not wish to represent the public opinion, starts doing the monkey dance