Innocence Lost

[JaKiri]

The two sentences do not follow. Each of my post concerning this ridiculous matter were answers to requests of clarification. Mostly from you.

 

An incorrect clarification (or the clarification of an invalid position) doesn't help matters.

[Tesseract]

The two sentences do not follow. Each of my post concerning this ridiculous matter were answers to requests of clarification. Mostly from you.

 

What requests of clarification? If you believed what you are writing this argument would have ended along time ago. PM him already! Quite hypocritical.

[Sayonara]

I was the subject of his unimportant and now infamous post.

Only insofar as your brain necessarily plays host to your opinions, which you put into the public domain for the purposes of discussion.

 

He was talking about him not understanding your apparently dichotomous positions, which has been stated again and again.

 

How can you not "get" that?

 

 

Why, yes.

Meaningless in that context.

 

 

You are undoubtly implying that I'm asking to take this off-thread so I don't ¨lose my face¨.

I couldn't really care less what you want to do. The facts are that you made a false accusation against Blike of a personal attack on you, and now you are deflecting attention away from the fact that you really ought to be either (a) showing how it was an attack, or (b) apologising to Blike for throwing Latin around with reckless abandon, or © both.

 

 

I clearly said that the discussion for this had no place in the thread and it is true.

No, it is not true.

 

It is a part of this discussion because it relates directly to your position on the topic at hand. It does not belong in PM between you and Blike and it certainly is not a topic for PMs between you and me.

 

 

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.

Don't try to tell me what I "wish" for.

 

 

The two sentences do not follow.

They aren't required to.

 

 

Each of my post concerning this ridiculous matter were answers to requests of clarification. Mostly from you.

No, most of your anwers were not "requests for clarification", they have been throat-stickingly obvious and blatant rewrites of extremely recent thread history.

 

 

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.

If it was a good suggestion it would have happened.

 

 

Also, no, saying that I started this matter does'nt mean that it cannot be true if I claim you to be provocateur.

So?

 

 

This is beyond farce now. Either show how Blike attacked your person, or admit that he did not. I'm not interested in hearing any other interminable deflections, nor am I interested in arguing about vapid reinterpretations of the things I have said.

 

 

An incorrect clarification (or the clarification of an invalid position) doesn't help matters.

Irony.

 

 

What requests of clarification? If you believed what you are writing this argument would have ended along time ago. PM him already! Quite hypocritical.

Do you mind? I don't want him PMing me about this. Butt out.

[Rakasha]

What requests of clarification? If you believed what you are writing this argument would have ended along time ago. PM him already! Quite hypocritical.

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.

 

It is a part of this discussion because it relates directly to your position on the topic at hand. It does not belong in PM between you and Blike and it certainly is not a topic for PMs between you and me.

 

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 ?

[blike]

I'm back now (finals week are over). I haven't been ignoring everyone, but I haven't had a lot of time to post. I will address Rakasha's post then yours JaKiri.

[blike]

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.

I am arguing that for a state to effectively do it's job, it must allow capital punishment. A prisoner also has the ability to harm his fellow inmates.

 

 

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.

Then you must demonstrate that it is not.

 

You cannot claim that the law MUST be based on justice because it seems to be currently the case.

The law is based on justice because that's its purpose. Justice is what the law of this country was founded upon and created to execute.

 

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.

I do not take back that claim. The purpose isn't to send a message. But that doesn't mean that it does not or cannot send a message. Starting my car engine is a good way to get the heater running, but that's not the purpose of my car engine.

 

Could you clarify ?

Yes. While you have picked over my points, you still haven't constructed an argument as to why I am wrong other than make a few statements without providing support. For example, you don't believe that the purpose of law is to execute justice, but you haven't stated why you believe that.

 

The same argument can be used against C.P. because of the possiblity of a false conviction.

Indeed.

[blike]

Does the state have the right to torture suspects?

 

Do we have the right to intervene in cases such as state sponsored genocide? The people there were members of the state, and therefore submitted their fundamental rights to it.

 

Your statement proposes a state with no boundaries of morality; is that what you meant to do?

Naturally, I do not believe any state has the right to commit genocide or torture subjects. But the reason that no state has the right to commit genocide is that genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances. That is, I believe, the reason most people do not believe genocide is moral. They may label it an immoral act, but they are really saying it is unjust.

[Sayonara]

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.

Again, twisting someone else's words. You've got some nerve.

It was quite clear what I said was that accusing people of logical fallacies without any attempt to back it up is an undesirable behaviour.

 

You have been given every opportunity to do so, and have instead engaged in some bizarre argument against nothing. The result? What most people will take away from this thread is "Rakasha attacks people for no reason, and won't back it up".

 

Now, to refer back to my previous post, perhaps you did not bother to read it all:

This is beyond farce now. Either show how Blike attacked your person, or admit that he did not. I'm not interested in hearing any other interminable deflections, nor am I interested in arguing about vapid reinterpretations of the things I have said.

I am running out of patience with you. Either comply with the above, or STFU.

[Sayonara]

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.

It's called being publically accountable. Private Messages are for private matters, not any where there are only two participants.

 

 

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 ?

Don't "sigh" me. This discussion we are having now has nothing to do with the death penalty, but the dispute we are talking about (i.e. blike's comments about your position, and your reaction) certainly does.

 

I have already told you what you need to do to end this. If you don't, I will. Trolls are not welcome here; hit-and-run trolls even less so.

[JaKiri]

But the reason that no state has the right to commit genocide is that genocide cannot be justified under any circumstances.

 

Here's the problem.

 

I don't believe killing (bar euthanasia) to be justified under any circumstances.

 

Why do you?

 

That is, I believe, the reason most people do not believe genocide is moral. They may label it an immoral act, but they are really saying it is unjust.

 

I wasn't sure how you reached this conclusion, until I realised that, because you don't regard killing as immoral, the only objection to genocide could be a justice based one.

 

Of course, you're assuming your views extend to other members of the populace, which is unsupported.

[Rakasha]

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¨.

 

It's called being publically accountable.

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.

 

Either show how Blike attacked your person, or admit that he did not.

 

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.

[Ophiolite]

Sayonara,

from a reasonably careful reading of the majority of the posts in this thread (well since around #45 or so) you seem to be saying this discussion needs to be conducted publicly. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You then tell Tesseract

Do you mind? I don't want him PMing me about this. Butt out.

If you want this to remain in the public arena, surely you have to accept public intervention? Or am I missing some incredibly subtle nuance of forum behaviour?

[Rakasha]

I am arguing that for a state to effectively do it's job, it must allow capital punishment.

 

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.

 

The law is based on justice because that's its purpose.

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 ?

 

I do not take back that claim. The purpose[/u'] isn't to send a message.

 

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 ?

 

While you have picked over my points, you still haven't constructed an argument as to why I am wrong other than make a few statements without providing support. For example, you don't believe that the purpose of law is to execute justice, but you haven't stated why you believe that.

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.

[Ophiolite]

Seconded.

[Sayonara]

If you want this to remain in the public arena, surely you have to accept public intervention? Or am I missing some incredibly subtle nuance of forum behaviour?

The fact that a discussion should be conducted in public does not mean that all parts of it are open to suggestion (especially when experience should tell the contributor that it's not a good idea).

Having said that I was a bit rude to Tesseract I suppose. Sorry Tesseract.

 

 

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¨.

Well quite, but recall that I have refuted your justifications and not yet seen any relevant counter points.

 

 

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.

Seconded. All hail agreeing on things.

 

 

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.

Kind of, but an ad hominem does follow a very specific structure (as I have already stated), and this occasion did not meet those criteria.

 

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.

Well, not really. He either did or he didn't attack you, and the evidence says that he didn't. Whether or not the comment was an a.h. depends on whether the comment meets the criteria for defining something as an a.h., and this one does not.

[Sayonara]

No' date=' no, I am talking of the [i']right[/i] to allow capital punishment.

...

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.

This is the thing, isn't it?

 

I'm still waiting on a reason to use capital punishment from the pro~ crowd, as opposed to reasons why arguments against don't work.

[john5746]

Which is why we have law - reason free from passion.

 

Passion isn't necessary to kill someone. If I am absolutely positive that someone is guilty of certain crimes, I believe I could kill them without any emotions involved. Now, to feed them or perform surgery on them(if I were a surgeon), while poor people in this world go without, I would have a harder time doing.

 

The problem for me is making sure the person is guilty. This costs too much to be practical in most cases. For me, I could care less one way or the other from a moral or emotional point. I want the least amount of money spent on the person as possible, because his life is worthless to society.

[Sayonara]

Passion isn't necessary to kill someone. If I am absolutely positive that someone is guilty of certain crimes, I believe I could kill them without any emotions involved. Now, to feed them or perform surgery on them(if I were a surgeon), while poor people in this world go without, I would have a harder time doing.

You don't need to be shouting "yeehaa, eat lead daddy-o" while you're actually killing them - the reaction of wanting to kill someone in response to their own murder is necessarily an emotive one.

 

Regardless, the point of the law being "reason free from passion" is to deduce the true standing of people's rights relative to each other without the burden of mob rule, and while you might make the claim that you can dispense justice without passion you cannot make that same claim for the eleven peers you'll be working with.

 

 

The problem for me is making sure the person is guilty. This costs too much to be practical in most cases. For me, I could care less one way or the other from a moral or emotional point. I want the least amount of money spent on the person as possible, because his life is worthless to society.

I see a problem with that. If you do not establish somebody's guilt, how can you place a value on their life?

 

What gives you that right even if you could? If Mother Teresa had stabbed someone in the chest in a moment of passion I can imagine a good few people would have given her side the benefit of the doubt.

[john5746]

Yes, the devil is in the details as always. Not all murderers are equally deserving of the same punishment. If we had an Australia where these convicts could be sent with no cost to society, all is well. The problem for me is that life is not free. So, maybe I don't have the right to sentence someone to death, but maybe they don't have the right to any food, shelter, or medical care.

 

Where to you stop with medical care? Do you deny a surgery they may need? Do you give it to them at the expense of someone else?

[Sayonara]

That's a topic for another thread (and would complicate this thread, as there is no analogous form in the justice system for private and state healthcare). In fact I have a vague recollection of that very discussion going on in another thread some time ago.

 

On a related note, once we have actually conquered Mars by going there we probably won't have much use for it. Plus it looks a bit like Australia.

[blike]

Just as an interesting side note, Scott Peterson was sentenced to death today. He'll appeal, of course.

 

"The six-man, six-woman jury reached its unanimous death penalty decision after finding Peterson guilty of killing Laci Peterson, 27, and her fetus on or around Christmas Eve 2002."

 

"He will sit on death row for more than five years before being appointed an attorney for his first appeal to the California Supreme Court, which is mandatory.

 

After exhausting state appeals, Peterson’s case would move to the federal courts, usually with a new attorney. The case would go to U.S. District Court and then to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has overturned more California death sentences than it has allowed. "

[Aardvark]

On a related note' date=' once we have actually conquered Mars by going there we probably won't have much use for it. Plus it looks a bit like Australia.[/quote']

 

I've always wondered about sending the convicts to Australia.

 

The logic seemed to go something like this.

 

They are foul criminals we want to punish, so, lets send them to a rich beautiful tropical island with awesome beaches in the Southern seas. 10 years on Bondi beach, that'll teach those scum a lesson.

[JaKiri]

Australia is almost entirely desert-like wasteland.

[Sayonara]

Yes, that does seem a bit silly.

 

Blike, does that count as a double murder?

[blike]

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.

I believe that law should be just, and thus, I believe the death penalty should be applied. Any government which does not allow the death penalty is not preserving justice to the fullest extent in the case of murder. If a nation finds this acceptable, as many do, very well. I cannot argue against your right to apply justice as you see fit. However, the majority of the United States feels that the death penalty should be applied when necessary. As I have argued, the only way for justice to be truely preserved is for the death penalty to be allowed. Thus, the death penalty is clearly justified and reasonable.