Innocence Lost

[Artorius]

I love these types of debates... etc

Good post....well partly...well only the abortion part.Expect some bashing over it though.

[jdurg]

Good post....well partly...well only the abortion part.Expect some bashing over it though.

 

Heh. I alwasy get bashing over my beliefs. I've learned to deal with it. With the abortion aspect, most people say 'Children aren't mistakes. If you're willing to have sex you should be willing to care for a child'. I always laugh at that because it's just like saying 'You should always be perfect. It is wrong to ever make a mistake.' That's where I always say 'Well then, let's remove the seatbelts and airbags from your car because you should never make a mistake with something as important as driving a vehicle.' A typical response to that is 'But with driving you have to deal with other people making mistakes which are out of your control. Or you have a part of the car that can suddenly break and so you need those seatbelts and airbags.' With this, I just say 'Well, with sex the condom can break or the birth control can not work. You need to have that early abortion available for that. Also, someone could rape a girl and make her pregnant. That wasn't a mistake she made. It was something someone else did.'

 

I've heard virtually all the arguments pro-choice/life. For my capital punishment thing, I just thought of the voluntary death thingy while at work today.

[JaKiri]

Heh. I alwasy get bashing over my beliefs. I've learned to deal with it. With the abortion aspect, most people say 'Children aren't mistakes. If you're willing to have sex you should be willing to care for a child'. I always laugh at that because it's just like saying 'You should always be perfect. It is wrong to ever make a mistake.' That's where I always say 'Well then, let's remove the seatbelts and airbags from your car because you should never make a mistake with something as important as driving a vehicle.' A typical response to that is 'But with driving you have to deal with other people making mistakes which are out of your control. Or you have a part of the car that can suddenly break and so you need those seatbelts and airbags.' With this, I just say 'Well, with sex the condom can break or the birth control can not work. You need to have that early abortion available for that. Also, someone could rape a girl and make her pregnant. That wasn't a mistake she made. It was something someone else did.'

 

You're defending the wrong part of your argument. I'd argue with the late term thing, depending on how late term is defined.

[Artorius]

Im pro-abortion but dont like the way you posted 177 it took some of the gloss of your previous post.Termination is never an easy choice regardless of not wanting the child.Indeed its stressfull and obviously affects the rest of the womens life.So your emphasis on mistake and car analogy is not the way to go jdurg...

[JaKiri]

Im pro-abortion but dont like the way you posted 177 it took some of the gloss of your previous post.Termination is never an easy choice regardless of not wanting the child.Indeed its stressfull and obviously affects the rest of the womens life.So your emphasis on mistake and car analogy is not the way to go jdurg...

 

Bear in mind that that post was geared towards the kind of argument in which the 'objection' to abortion is based around the baby coming from the choice of the mother, and it's logical that any counterarguments should reflect this.

[Rakasha]

Apparently so. [sites']

 

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.

 

An ad hominem is specifically a criticism of or reference to unfavourable and characteristic past behaviour that is not related to the discussion, the purpose of which is to damage the credibility of an opponent.

 

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 ?

[john5746]

1) Do you believe life is invaluable (just asking because it's fundamental to our discussion)?

 

2) Is the purpose of social law to render justice? Justice in this case may not be an "eye for an eye"' date=' but two $10s for a $20, as you stated earlier. The end result is that the [u']punishment fits the crime[/u], though it may not be the exact same action as the crime. For example, stealing a car might result in 10 years in prison.

 

2a) If not, what is its purpose and what is the basis for rendering punishment?

 

Good Questions:

 

1) Life isn't invaluable, it is to the person in question or their loved ones, but not society in general.

 

2) Punishment fitting the crime? Well, how about someone who kills 10 people vs a person who kills 1?

 

Also, intent has something to do with it also, because a soldier can drop a bomb on civilians killing thousands and is celebrated - that doesn't mean those civilians were worthless. A doctor commits malpractice, resulting in someone's death - he doesn't get killed, his insurance pays people, and I think you want this price to be limited to what value?

 

To me, if someone steals my car, I would much rather them work and give me a new car than to spend 10 years in jail. In fact, they should all work and make cars, or something to be given to the poor. In these cases, rehabing the person is just as important as making them repay society.

 

In the case of murder, in many cases we are not worried about rehab, because they are a lost cause. They should at least work to pay for their keep, if not and they are guilty beyond any doubt, then get rid of them.

 

Scott Peterson will not be killed. He will spend his life in death row. That's good enough for me.

[Sayonara]

I don't think your point was the same point I was making. Your point was that destroying life to redress a destroyed life is like adding -1 and -1 trying to get zero. My point was that justice is perceived as a scale, and thus balance is only acheived[/u'] by -1 and -1.

It's only a balance if you hang the two -1s off some metaphorical fulcrum that has no tangible meaning.

 

The reality is that two people (in a simple scenario, anyway) have been killed where we had the power to stop it at one. Not only did we not stop it, but we actively participated. A society that uses capital punishment will never have clean hands.

 

 

That's not what I am saying. The modern justice system is essentially what you have described. As I said in earlier posts, we do not steal theives cars, nor do we beat those who are guilty of domestic violence. We are not an eye for an eye society.

And yet in order to justify your position on capital punishment your key argument centers around an eye for an eye approach, on the basis that life cannot be quantified, when quite clearly the United States can and does quantify the value of lives every single day; much like, in fact, any country that has mobile armed forces, a national health system, emergency services, a welfare system, and the concept of life insurance.

 

I really need convincing that this argument is not a case of special pleading.

 

 

But a society who calls life invaluable cannot quantify life.

There are plenty of people you know within a single degree of separation who can tell you exactly how much you are worth to society - in dollars - and why.

 

 

We cannot make it a monitary value. We cannot define it as a certain amount of days in prison. That is why we, as the United States, do not have an eye for an eye society EXCEPT in the case of murder. We can quantify the damage to all other things: property, money, assets, bodily harm, everything. We cannot quantify the damage done by removing human life into 75, 100, or even 200 years in prison.

If this is the case, why are all killings not punished by death? If that which the victim has been deprived of is invaluable, then no extenuating circumstances should be able to affect the sentence.

 

And on top of that, I am fairly certain that not all instances of capital punishment are on the back of a murder sentence.

 

 

Because only something invaluable can redress the balance of something invaluable. This concept is the very foundation of justice. What is taken is owed.

So you have said, however as I have mentioned I have issues with that.

 

There is of course also the flaw that a convicted murder with a sentence of capital punishment could offer to hand over their collection of 12th dynasty Egyptian amulets as recompense, rather than having the executor (pun not intended) of their estate destroy them all upon their death.

 

Are those more invaluable than a life, or less invaluable? Since we aren't allowed to quantify invaluable, we now have a problem.

 

 

 

We're repeating ourselves too much here. Lets try a different approach to the argument. I'll ask a few questions and you answer them. Then I'll ask some more, you answer, then we'll flip. You ask, I answer.

I don't particularly appreciate being asked strongly leading questions before I have agreed to this method of debate, but alright.

 

 

1) Do you believe life is invaluable (just asking because it's fundamental to our discussion)?

Yes.

 

However I am also aware that (i) humans are fickle, (ii) invaluable is relative, (iii) the principle that life is invaluable does not actually relate to the relative worths that any two people have with respect to society.

 

Also, I do not in fact personally decide how valuable a life is on behalf of society - my opinion on that is not really relevant at all. Therefore I am not actually basing my arguments on my personal beliefs, but on what I see as an emotive hypocrisy in societies that practice capital punishment.

 

 

Is the purpose of social law to render justice?

Yes, however I would argue strongly against having "special punishments" for certain crimes on the basis of a single semantic that could well be applied unilaterally, but isn't.

[JaKiri]

Social Law almost universally fails to render justice.

[Sayonara]

Well yes, but his question was whether that is its purpose, not whether it succeeds.

[JaKiri]

Well yes, but his question was whether that is its purpose, not whether it succeeds.

 

Hence, I didn't reply to him with that comment, but leave it floating in its own disconnected aether of sense.

[AL]

no ..no...NO !!

what is reprehensible is using this example of an innocent person put to death,as a reason to abolish CP from society.CP sends society a message ...and its "hey asshole..psycho...freak...if you want your liberty and to carry out your days being part of society....then before you snuf out someones life for your own sadistic pleasure....you better think carefully and be prepared for your peers to fry your scum butt,without a wet sponge on your head".

 

Now clearly this CP is not a deterrent to some individuals,hence they kill.But on the whole millions of people cherish their liberty and comply with societys laws.(Not because we dont feel like killing people,which is an instinctive urge as we are animals)Therefore CP or incarceration is a deterrent, and the fruits of such laws enable the majority, to enjoy hunter gathering without the fear of ones neighbour clubbing our spouse over the head ,and helping themselves to a little carnal recreation.

I am skeptical of any claims of CP's deterrence effect, as there is no real empirical way to measure the effect that isn't overtly problematic. I am particularly skeptical of claims CP provides a deterrence here in America, since the only type of murder that qualifies for CP is first-degree; that is murder which is planned, calculated and premeditated -- precisely the type of murder in which the murderer would take every precaution to ensure he doesn't get caught! Perhaps if CP were applied to "murders of passion," it might have a greater deterrence effect. Not that I would support it there either, but you'd have greater support for your argument.

Now if to rid ourselves of a thousand serial killers, just one innocent has to die...then thats a sacrifice for a cause...and that persons death is not in vain!!!.

This forcible sacrifice for a cause principle is a very troublesome one. Where is the line drawn? If we can save a dozen lives by forcibly harvesting organs from one person against their will, should we? It's for a good cause.

(Now before anyone accuse me of commiting a "slippery slope" fallacy, note that it is not fallacious in this context because Artorius hasn't drawn a clear line of demarcation as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable forced sacrifice.)

[Rakasha]

the principle that life is invaluable does not actually relate to the relative worths that any two people have with respect to society.

 

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.

[Artorius]

rakasha you seem to have things the wrong way round in your reasoning.The reason that 'crimes of passion' dont carry CP are because they are just that.With no clear intent of killing the victim,and very rare! so any murderer wont get away with that as defence.Cp as detterent against first degree murder,premeditated and planned works,the proof is we dont all run around killing each other because were upset.

Secondly i would also be troubled by this forced sacrifice you refer to,however that wasnt what i meant.To clarify i was reasoning that a judicial mistake in the system ,that allows the unknown innocence of a person found quilty to be executed.Is an acceptable loss when that system works and hundreds of the actual guilty die!

On that basis i am in favour of it and death row should be lets say 'less full.'.

That peterson guy will be on death row for years to come,after appeals etc he could live for decades.When i suggest we fry him a week from tuesday.

[Sayonara]

Cp as detterent against first degree murder,premeditated and planned works,the proof is we dont all run around killing each other because were upset.

Well, apart from the ones who aren't deterred and get the sentence, and also apart from the ones who make a proper effort to not get caught.

 

Still, it's better than countries without capital punishment, where everyone is constantly going around plotting murders because there is no scary deterrent

 

 

That peterson guy will be on death row for years to come,after appeals etc he could live for decades.When i suggest we fry him a week from tuesday.

If he's paying for the life he took with his own life (which I have issues with to begin with) I have to wonder why he is also made to suffer perhaps a decade of incarceration (assuming Blike's explanation of Justice).

[jdurg]

But there are some other countries who do have capital punishment but have insanely high crime rates. Look at a few middle-eastern counties. You can be executed for simply looking at someone wrong. With the strictness of their laws, you'd expect there to be zero crime. However, that is not the case. Capital Punishment really only works in a high-wealth society. If the vast majority of people are really poor and are living a difficult life, they really won't care if they die or not. Especially if they are deeply religious. So really the socioeconomic status of a person will determine whether or not they are going to commit a major crime if capital punishment is present. If everybody was well off and their life was going great, then capital punishment may be an effective deterrent because they won't want to lose everything they have. So I also think that capital punishment is only an effective deterrent for the well-off and people with no troubles in their lives.

[Artorius]

Well' date=' apart from the ones who aren't deterred and get the sentence, and also apart from the ones who make a proper effort to not get caught.

 

Still, it's better than countries without capital punishment, where everyone is constantly going around plotting murders because there is no scary deterrent

.[/quote']

haha nice reply,but you know what i meant CP along with other laws on the whole keep civilised society from decending into anarchy...and whilst CP cannot guarentee a sadistic person wont kill,it makes sure once caught..and exterminated they wont be able to kill again(incarceration along is not a deterrent as some kill inmates).Anyway if CP was no deterrent why does one find that a serial killer happens to do his work in states were CP is abolished.Or as the net tightens move abroad to say the UK shoot a policeman and they you are a nice rent free,sky movie channel,3 square meals a day holiday.Now if CP were in place in the UK these people wouldnt come here would they.

[JaKiri]

It's not the laws that keep things ordered, it's indoctrination, backed up with a gun, metaphorically speaking.

 

Also, anarchy isn't inherently disordered, any more than, say, democracy is. It's just there isn't a higher structure of governance.

[Artorius]

well...yes anarchy is inherently disordered by definition.Confusion,political disorder,lack of any cohesive principles,no common standard or purpose.Everyone running around doing exactly as they please.

[JaKiri]

well...yes anarchy is inherently disordered by definition.Confusion,political disorder,lack of any cohesive principles,no common standard or purpose.Everyone running around doing exactly as they please.

 

You're just copying that from dictionary.com.

 

an·ar·chy P Pronunciation Key (nr-k)

n. pl. an·ar·chies

Absence of any form of political authority.

Political disorder and confusion.

Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

 

The latter pair aren't technical definitions, and don't apply. Anarchy isn't necessarily disordered.

[AL]

 

well...yes anarchy is inherently disordered by definition.Confusion,political disorder,lack of any cohesive principles,no common standard or purpose.Everyone running around doing exactly as they please.

Anarchy as a political term just means lack of government authority. It doesn't stop people from collaborating and forming other non-government institutions that have authority, or that can impose authority and prevent others from doing as they please.

 

This is irrelevant to the discussion though, as your claim that abolishing CP would cause a society to degenerate into anarchy is rather baseless. If anything, here in America, the right-wing often accuse the many left-leaning countries of Europe (the ones that have abolished CP) of having too much government, quite the opposite of anarchy.

 

Cp as detterent against first degree murder,premeditated and planned works,the proof is we dont all run around killing each other because were upset.

You cannot assume that just because we aren't all killers that CP has deterred us. To assume so begs the question.

[Rakasha]

Rakasha you seem to have things the wrong way round in your reasoning..

 

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

 

That peterson guy will be on death row for years to come,after appeals etc he could live for decades. When i suggest we fry him a week from tuesday

 

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.