07-08-2002 06:35									#151
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Assuming you can afford a lawyer, of course. If not, well, then I guess you'd be SOL.

I shouldnt have a problem with hiring a lawyer.

quote: What do you base your morality off of, nationalist? Carrots and sticks? "If I don't kill people then God will give me a carrot, but if I kill people then God will hit me with a stick" type of deal? That a pretty pathetic way to decide right from wrong. Name a moral absolute for me, since you're so keen on them. Obviously "Don't torture people" isn't one of them, just as "Don't kill without just cause" isn't one either (unless you're of the mind that "Because he makes me mad!" is a just cause for killing somebody, of course).

I'll name the m,oral absolutes for you. Bear in mind that am an athiest and have been one for many years. Laws are made not on morals, cause as loinburger has so keenly pointed out is that morals are relative to your upbringing, religion, culture, etc. One thing that all Amricans share in common howver is our society in which we live. Therefore, we can, and do make laws based on what is needed to protect society - thanks to the wisdom of our forfathers to seperate church and state.
What i mean by laws protecting society is that ifthere was no law against murdering, then it would happen alot by those who have no moral upbringing that teaches that is wrong. We would have people boarding up their houses and afraid to go outside (and therefore not go to work) because tehy are afraid of being killed. Our Society would break down into anarchy. This same scenario can be replayed over and over again if you take out certain laws, such as various anti-theft laws. If people could steal stuff without repercussion, they would do so. Therefore people would again board up their homes to protect their property.

Laws are meant to protect our society and make it stable through law and order. I love the wonders of civilization and the technology and easy way of life it brings. I define my 'athiest ethics' this way. I dont want to have to hunt and gather for my very survival everyday. I want to go to the movies, go to the store, watch tv, play various sports, paint, play guitar, post replies on an internet forum - all this would not be possible without laws, one of the bases of civilization. This is why I dont break laws, cause everytime I would, I contribute to that little bit of chaos that could be the feather to break the camels back and plunge our society into anarchy. Thats extreme and would never happen probably, but the principle behind it is how I define ethics and the 'moral absolute' of society.

Kman

	07-08-2002 06:38									#152
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Seeings how less then 100 people are executed per year in the US (I believe but I'm guessing there) I would say it is completely non-sensical to discuss "what ifs" that involve 9,999 or even 8,000. The fact remains the number executed is exceedingly modest where as the number detered is, presumably, quite large.

Texas is by far the leading CP state in the US. They alone acount for something like 57 CP deaths a year. But again, Texas puts by far the most to death, so it is concievable the total put to death a year is around 100.

	07-08-2002 06:45									#153
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman I shouldnt have a problem with hiring a lawyer.

That's fortunate for you, but the point is that your idea of "don't bother reforming the prisons 'cause we can just sue" doesn't work for the working class, which AFAIK makes up the bulk of the prison population.

quote: Laws are made not on morals, cause as loinburger has so keenly pointed out is that morals are relative to your upbringing, religion, culture, etc. ... Thats extreme and would never happen probably, but the principle behind it is how I define ethics and the 'moral absolute' of society.

That works when you're absolutely certain that all of your society's laws are moral, but that isn't always the case. A good example of this are the Jim Crow laws in the South. The Civil Rights movement was primarily responsible for retracting these unjust laws, but in the process it somewhat destabilized society (in the form of protests and such). Would this therefore mean that the Civil Rights movement was unethical? If not, then how would you reconcile it with the cultural relativism you described?

	07-08-2002 07:22									#154
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Says the guy who wants to torture people. What do you base your morality off of, nationalist? Carrots and sticks? "If I don't kill people then God will give me a carrot, but if I kill people then God will hit me with a stick" type of deal? That a pretty pathetic way to decide right from wrong. Name a moral absolute for me, since you're so keen on them. Obviously "Don't torture people" isn't one of them, just as "Don't kill without just cause" isn't one either (unless you're of the mind that "Because he makes me mad!" is a just cause for killing somebody, of course).

Personally, I think that being an athiest is an easy out. You can't prove that there is a God. Besides, most religions make you do things that people don't want to do. They make you say that others are wrong. Mind you, I don't agree with mindless Dogma spouters. Relgion needs to be something that you contemplate. I am a Christian/Deist. I value the contributions that Christianity has made to western civilization, and respect its traditions and contribuitions to the rule of law.

I'm no bible thumper. I don't care what your personal religion is. I try my damndest not to use my religion in arguments, because of the very nature of religion and spirituality. You can't prove any of it. It is intangible. However, I do have a problem with those who believe in no higher force or power. The reason is this. Those people do not have to believe that right and wrong exist. Every action is of the same value. Murdering a drifter or feeding a starving man are equivilant. Why should there be any difference. I don't trust athiests completely, because there is nothing that reinforces their convinctions, no order behind them that strengthens them. Why shouldn't they lie, cheat, or steal? Even if they think that these things are wrong, do they truly believe them? Why are they wrong? People who are actually religious, not merely posing as religious, are stopped by consideration of right and wrong. A civilization without religion is doomed to destruction. When no one believes that there is right and wrong, chaos reigns. Why control their urges when there is no punishment for running wild? We need people to believe that a higher power gives us right and wrong. Morality is therby reinforced. After that, the so called "carrot and stick" method evolves into something much more rewarding. It becomes an ingrained morality, something people do because it is the right thing to do, not because they want a reward. It is only then when you get truly religious people.

If you athiests point to this and say "I feel this way already! I don't need a God", then I suggest you step back and examine where these feelings come from. Are they nothing but superflous, selfrightous mirages that disappear when expediencey requires them, or are they truly heartfelt? If they are truly heartfelt, then I don't think that you are truly an athiest.

You ask of my moral absolutes. I don't know where you get that I don't believe in "no killing without just cause." I am referring to executing people gulity of raping and murdering children, not shooting somebody because they made me mad. This is merely an ad hominem. I don't think that we can kill people without just cause. That is where I have a problem with CP. If there is a doubt that a person committed the crime, then there should be no execution. If he did commit that crime, and there is proof, then the person should be executed. I think that the torturer should be tortured. It may have some "eye for an eye" to it, but why is that wrong? It isn't. It is justice. Athiests, why is killing an innocent person wrong?

Torture isn't universally wrong. It can be used when it can save the lives of innocents. If we had captured Moussai (sp?) before Sept. 11th, and had known that there was some kind of plot amiss, then I believe torture should have been used to find this out and protect ourselves.

Another absolute is no sex with children. I believe child abuse is sick. It destroys children's lives more than we can ever know. There is no case in which sex with a child is justifiable.

	07-08-2002 09:30									#155
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by nationalist Personally, I think that being an athiest is an easy out. You can't prove that there is a God. Besides, most religions make you do things that people don't want to do. They make you say that others are wrong.

I don't understand how the last three sentences justify or explain the first sentence in this statement.

quote: However, I do have a problem with those who believe in no higher force or power. The reason is this. Those people do not have to believe that right and wrong exist.

Somebody who believes in a higher power doesn't necessarily have to believe that right and wrong exist, either. Furthermore, somebody who believes in a higher power might believe that right and wrong exist, but they might have completely irrational ideas about what is right and what is wrong; for example, somebody who says "Unjustified killing is wrong because God says so" can just as easily say "Unjustified killing is acceptable because God says so," with no substantive difference between the two rationales.

quote: Murdering a drifter or feeding a starving man are equivilant. Why should there be any difference.

Oh, come on. Basic consistency dictates that murdering a drifter is wicked and that feeding a starving man is righteous, except perhaps for the infinitesmally small portion of the human race that enjoys being murdered and/or starved.

quote: I don't trust athiests completely, because there is nothing that reinforces their convinctions, no order behind them that strengthens them.

Consistency/rationality and societal norms provide tangible reinforcements to atheists' convictions, as opposed to completely irrational beliefs like "[Insert action here] is wrong because [Insert deity/force/pantheon here] says so" which are based on beings or forces that, as you admit, can't even be proven to exist.

quote: Why shouldn't they lie, cheat, or steal? Even if they think that these things are wrong, do they truly believe them? Why are they wrong?

Again, basic consistency and cultural relativism provide the rationales.

quote: People who are actually religious, not merely posing as religious, are stopped by consideration of right and wrong.

Perhaps, but if they're "actually religious" to the point that their entire system of morality is derived from forces that might not even exist, then their considerations of right and wrong are completely irrational.

quote: After that, the so called "carrot and stick" method evolves into something much more rewarding.

I'm assuming you mean that "carrots and sticks" evolves to "cream pies and crucifixions"...

quote: It becomes an ingrained morality

Ah, my assumption is incorrect--you mean that "carrots and sticks" evolves to "indoctrinations and taboos." I prefer cream pies, but whatever floats your boat.

quote: If you athiests point to this and say "I feel this way already! I don't need a God", then I suggest you step back and examine where these feelings come from.

Alright, let me get introspective for a moment... Yup, the feelings still come from basic considerations of consistency. Good to know that nothing's changed in the past day or two...

quote: If they are truly heartfelt, then I don't think that you are truly an athiest.

If your definition of an "atheist" is not "somebody who doesn't believe in a god or higher power," then sure, I might not be an atheist.

quote: You ask of my moral absolutes. I don't know where you get that I don't believe in "no killing without just cause." I am referring to executing people gulity of raping and murdering children, not shooting somebody because they made me mad. This is merely an ad hominem.

Whoops, I was misled by my belief that revenge doesn't constitute a just cause since it is self-serving in the extreme.

quote: I think that the torturer should be tortured. It may have some "eye for an eye" to it, but why is that wrong? It isn't. It is justice.

It's not justice, it's revenge. You can't interchange the two.

quote: Athiests, why is killing an innocent person wrong?

I've given an answer to this above. Now, you tell me, why is killing an innocent person wrong?

quote: Torture isn't universally wrong. It can be used when it can save the lives of innocents.

You previously haven't referred to torture in this capacity, only in the capacity of exacting revenge.

quote: There is no case in which sex with a child is justifiable.

Agreed.

	07-08-2002 11:54									#156
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger That's fortunate for you, but the point is that your idea of "don't bother reforming the prisons 'cause we can just sue" doesn't work for the working class, which AFAIK makes up the bulk of the prison population. That works when you're absolutely certain that all of your society's laws are moral, but that isn't always the case. A good example of this are the Jim Crow laws in the South. The Civil Rights movement was primarily responsible for retracting these unjust laws, but in the process it somewhat destabilized society (in the form of protests and such). Would this therefore mean that the Civil Rights movement was unethical? If not, then how would you reconcile it with the cultural relativism you described?

First off, where did you get that I said dont bother reforming the prisons? I've been preaching for half this thread on why there needs to be reform to make prison tougher and to isolate differnet types of fellons so they dont go sharing their ideas like a bg forum.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying in my discussion on ethics. I was basically saying that you cant base laws on morals because morals are relative. So instead you should make laws to protect society and its inhabitants from harm. The Jim Crow laws, though you would say they are not fair, I would say they hurt those who lived in our society by denying them their rights. The Jim Crow laws then were bad laws because they harmed undeserving members of society merely in order persecute the minority. This only hurts a societies efficiency and therefore are poor laws.
My point is, laws cannot be based on morals, for will you use Christian morals? Will you use Hindu morals? You must base laws on what betters society in that societies general view of betterment. The US' general veiw of betterment is money and technology and other stuff like that.

EDIT: I see what you are saying. Sure the Civil Rights movement caused chaos, but it was for the point of making the society better in the end - the Jim Cro laws were the source of that civil unrest, were they not? I should of been more clear on that. The Jim Crow laws may have kept things stable temporarily, but it was their exsistance that created much of the civil unrest and chaos. By removing them you were only making African-Americans happy and putting an end to the civil unrest and protecting society and civilization from failing. You were just looking at the small picture in that instance, not the big picture.

	07-08-2002 12:00									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Somebody who believes in a higher power doesn't necessarily have to believe that right and wrong exist, either. Furthermore, somebody who believes in a higher power might believe that right and wrong exist, but they might have completely irrational ideas about what is right and what is wrong; for example, somebody who says "Unjustified killing is wrong because God says so" can just as easily say "Unjustified killing is acceptable because God says so," with no substantive difference between the two rationales.

This is because good and bad are relative terms. Osama bin Laden says I am evil and he thinks himself the holiest man in the world for killing 3000 of me.
Conversely, I think he is bad for that very reason and that I am good, even though my country is responsible for the deaths of millions (through war, almost every modern industrial nation is responsible for millions of deaths one way or another).

Same thing could be said for Palestinians and Israelis. Both wold say they ar good and the other evil.
Do you think Timothy Mcvay thought he was evil for bombing the OC Federal Building? Of course not. Only people who are mentally ill could ever think themselves to be truly evil.

	07-08-2002 16:38									#158
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Frogger What I mean is that if the country can afford to go without applying the death penalty in desertion cases, it should do so. If we're fighting a 21st century version of WWI, say, then I see the necessity. If it's a relative cakewalk like all military confrontations NATO countries have been involved in in the last 30 years, then I don't.

The U.S. hasn't executed someone for desertion since WWII, so I don't think it's overused. I do think that it may serve as a deterrent to keep people from bugging out rather than taking a reasonable risk to help the larger group escape a bad situation. There were plenty of opportunities in Vietnam and Korea for cowardice, but a reluctance nonetheless to hand out the ultimate penalty. Fortunately the professionalization of the U.S. Army has kept cowardice to a minimum in recent years, even in tough spots like Somalia.

	07-08-2002 18:59									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman First off, where did you get that I said dont bother reforming the prisons?

Well, first you say "Prisons are too cushy because prisoners get fed and housed blah blah." Then, when somebody (Che I think) says "Prisons actually aren't very cushy, unless you consider being under constant threat of assault, rape, and murder to be 'cushy,'" to which you replied "Oh, well, if I get assaulted, raped, or murdered, then I can just hire a lawyer." Since you used "I can get a lawyer" to dismiss the argument that prisons aren't cushy, one would assume that you have likewise dismissed the argument that prisons need to be reformed in order to become less hellish.

Also, when you say

quote: If that ever happens - which it probably wont because people who are upset about the death penalty will be the ones who will be crying about how its too cruel. ITS FRIGGIN PRISON edit: for murderers! ITS SUPPOSED TO BE CRUEL. ITS WHERE CRUEL PEOPLE GO. Oh well...

you demonstrate once again that you don't consider the constant threat of assault, rape, and murder to be a problem that needs to be reformed. Finally, when you say

quote: Reform!? If someone could murder someone with the knowledge that they could be 'reformed' and put back in the streets, they might do so.

then you're summarily dismissing rehabilitation from the list of possible prison reforms.

So, given that you think that prisons need to be made even more hellish (since the constant threat of assault, rape, and murder in prison is too cushy), and given that you don't think that prisons ought to be reformed in order to place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, it's pretty easy to see where I drew the conclusion that you don't care at all about prison reform.

quote: The Jim Crow laws, though you would say they are not fair, I would say they hurt those who lived in our society by denying them their rights.

What rights are you referring to? Where did they get these rights if society wasn't giving them said rights?

quote: You must base laws on what betters society in that societies general view of betterment.

So, you'd say that slavery was justified/right/lawful/whatever since the majority of people two or three hundred years ago thought that slavery was fine and dandy? By the same token, was it fine for the Nazis to kill the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc. because German society at the time generally thought that these things were find and dandy?

quote: This is because good and bad are relative terms.

They're only relative to a small extent, but for the most part they're fairly objective. You can't just arbitrarily redefine them or you run the risk of misapplying them.

	07-08-2002 19:33									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Kramerman mentioned this... I'll name the m,oral absolutes for you. Bear in mind that am an athiest and have been one for many years. Laws are made not on morals, cause as loinburger has so keenly pointed out is that morals are relative to your upbringing, religion, culture, etc. One thing that all Amricans share in common howver is our society in which we live. Therefore, we can, and do make laws based on what is needed to protect society - thanks to the wisdom of our forfathers to seperate church and state.

And who is to say that ALL American laws are "just" and "moral" in the world's eyes? Sounds like you're going for cultural relativism here... in which each culture, while in their own culture, is "right" and "just" and must respect the actions of other cultures.

But once a country such as the US gets big enough they start enforcing their cultural relativism on other countries.

The cultural relativism of the world (thinking of all the countries that have the DP vs those that don't) would be that the DP is wrong under those arguements.

quote: loinburger pointed this out... That's fortunate for you, but the point is that your idea of "don't bother reforming the prisons 'cause we can just sue" doesn't work for the working class, which AFAIK makes up the bulk of the prison population.

I thought that it was the under-working class for the most part in prisons... I mean, take a look at even a game like SimCity 4. It may be in the planning stages, but they've tried to properly figure out what causes crime: poor, uneducated, underpaid, untrained people that need some way to provide for their families or else be sucked into the criminal underworld.

Certainly "high-class" people also commit horrible crimes, but for the most part, unfortunately, it's the under-working class (read poor) that commit the crimes.

quote: nationalist thought of this... Personally, I think that being an athiest is an easy out. You can't prove that there is a God. Besides, most religions make you do things that people don't want to do. They make you say that others are wrong. Mind you, I don't agree with mindless Dogma spouters. Relgion needs to be something that you contemplate. I am a Christian/Deist. I value the contributions that Christianity has made to western civilization, and respect its traditions and contribuitions to the rule of law.

Where in the world does being athiest come into play!? We're discussing for/against the DP, if you really want to attack this issue, make another thread but you can argue against/for the DP without even bringing morals into it: logistics.

If we could solve the problem of poor people, we'd stop, statistically, most crimes from even being committed.

If we rebuilt the family ethic of the 1950s we'd see, statistically, most gang/youth related crimes drop. (No, I'm not saying women should not work... men are just as capable to stay home with the kids and be a family value anchor.)

quote: loinburger relieved me here... Again, basic consistency and cultural relativism provide the rationales.

Finally! At least somebody will understand what I'm talking about when I mention relativist theories vs. universalist ones. *sighs* Why is it we're the minority on at least having a minor grasp of them? (I'm by no means a philosophy master.)

quote: loinburger's insights continue... Whoops, I was misled by my belief that revenge doesn't constitute a just cause since it is self-serving in the extreme. It's not justice, it's revenge. You can't interchange the two. [/quote *applause* [quote]Kramerman mentioned this... This is because good and bad are relative terms. Osama bin Laden says I am evil and he thinks himself the holiest man in the world for killing 3000 of me.

That would be cultural relativism at work again...

	07-08-2002 22:18									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by loinburger [QUOTE]Somebody who believes in a higher power doesn't necessarily have to believe that right and wrong exist, either. Furthermore, somebody who believes in a higher power might believe that right and wrong exist, but they might have completely irrational ideas about what is right and what is wrong; for example, somebody who says "Unjustified killing is wrong because God says so" can just as easily say "Unjustified killing is acceptable because God says so," with no substantive difference between the two rationales. Oh, come on. Basic consistency dictates that murdering a drifter is wicked and that feeding a starving man is righteous, except perhaps for the infinitesmally small portion of the human race that enjoys being murdered and/or starved.

You answered your own question. Consistancy provides the substantive difference. We seem to have an innate feeling that random murder is wrong. The question is, why do we have that feeling? What makes random killing wrong? I maintain that it is the belief in a higher power, even if that power doesn't exist, that has made the determination that that kiling is wrong. Without a higher power there is no real reason why doing one thing is better than doing something else. There is no real basis for that consistancy. The consistancy has developed through the years inside of a religious culture.

quote: Consistency/rationality and societal norms provide tangible reinforcements to atheists' convictions, as opposed to completely irrational beliefs like "[Insert action here] is wrong because [Insert deity/force/pantheon here] says so" which are based on beings or forces that, as you admit, can't even be proven to exist.

I don't know if it is more irrational to believe that a higher power created the universe or to believe that it just created itself out of nothing. Both seem to be equally hard to prove. Mind you, I am not a strict creationist. I don't believe in the Garden of Eden. I believe that evolution has worked. However, I think that there is a higher power behind it all. It seems too complex to me to just have happened. I believe that the big bang was started by God. I can't prove it, but athiests don't have the evidence to disprove it either. I'm not prepared to say that we understand enough about the universe to simply say that there is no God and this is how everything happened. Neither of us can prove that our way is the truth.

quote: Again, basic consistency and cultural relativism provide the rationales.

Moral consistancy and cultural relativism are, by nature, the result of our particular culture. Our societal sense of right and wrong has developed over thousands of years. Much of that development has been in concordance with or in reaction to church doctrine. Yes, consistancy and relativism are involved in the judgement of actions. However, our very judgement has evovled in a religious culture. Thousands of years of history has gone in to our precepts of right and wrong. Even now, our legal system is based on the 10 Commandments. Much like consistancy, our cultural relativism had to have developed out of the actions of members of that society. A culture's moral relativism and its legal system are closely related; after all both are measures of right and wrong. Our culture's sense of right and wrong has developed through religion, much like our legal systems have evolved from religious laws. What you consider right and wrong, actions that you consider to have been reinforced through societal norms, have been backed by a society that has its notion of right and wrong based on religion.

quote: Perhaps, but if they're "actually religious" to the point that their entire system of morality is derived from forces that might not even exist, then their considerations of right and wrong are completely rrational.

The basis of right and wrong is the idea that there are consequences to one's actions. Morality is based on deciding what is right or wrong. It is the belief that there is a God that can enforce the consequences that has spurred people into deciding right and wrong. The society that has grown around these beliefs reinforces the system of morality that has developed. The societal norms and cultural relativism that has developed is a direct response to this original belief in God. Whether God actually exists or not doesn't matter all that much. It is the belief that he does that has spawned the morality. I don't believe in God because I need somebody to tell me what to do. I have already explained why I can't rule out the existance of God.

quote: Ah, my assumption is incorrect--you mean that "carrots and sticks" evolves to "indoctrinations and taboos." I prefer cream pies, but whatever floats your boat.

It is called socialization. Indocrinations and taboos are just your way of labeling what a society decides is right and wrong. They both fit in your theory of social norms and cultural relativism. Our society is based on those systems of indoctrinations and taboos

quote: Whoops, I was misled by my belief that revenge doesn't constitute a just cause since it is self-serving in the extreme. It's not justice, it's revenge. You can't interchange the two.

Revenge is a type of justice. Crimes that deprive an innocent of his life should be paid for by revenge. It is the only way that a murderer can be punished for his crime. The worse crime that a man can commit is taking the life from an innocent. Everyone has the right to live and multiply; that is the priviledge of life. When a person takes that life for an invalid reason, when he deprives an innocent person of his right to live, then his right has been revoked. Anything other than that and the murderer has not truly been punished. You wouldn't rape a rapist to punish him for a crime. Rape, even though it is horrible, does not deprive someone of their life.

	07-08-2002 23:04									#162
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by nationalist We seem to have an innate feeling that random murder is wrong. The question is, why do we have that feeling? What makes random killing wrong? I maintain that it is the belief in a higher power, even if that power doesn't exist, that has made the determination that that kiling is wrong.

It is very difficult for us to tell what is innate in human behavior and what is learned behavior. However, anyone who stops to think about why a society might frown upon random murder (which you clearly have not done) can come up with a much better reason that a mere fear of devine retribution. Murder, and not just random murder (which is the rarest kind of all), from an individual stand point because exceedingly few individuals want to be murdered.

From an individual standpoint, a prohibition against murder is a matter of self-defense. We agree not to murder each other so that we in turn will not be murdered. Also, we agree to help others not be murdered so that they in turn will help us not to be murdered.

People, however, are not merely individuals, they are members of a social group. When a member of a society is removed by murder, that society is harmed. That person can no longer contribute, engage in the interpersonal relationships, etc. So we have a prohibition against murder also because we do not wish to see our society diminished by letting its members be murdered.

I find both of these matieralist reasons (i.e., atheist) for opposing murder far more solid than, "my invisible friend told me murder was wrong." Invisibile friends have an odd habit of justifying or prohibiting whatever the real person thinks should be justified or prohibited (provding the person isn't suffering from psychotic delusions).

The latter reason also extends to my political opposition to the death penalty. By executing someone, we destroy interpersonal bonds that include that person. The convicts family and friends did nothing to deserve having those bonds be broken. They did nothing to deserve the emotional torture that comes with having a loved one executed. Furthermore, by executing people, we remove the possibility that that person might be able to contribute to society.

Once a murderer is safely behind bars and no longer a threat to society, they can actually become semi-productive. There are murderers who become artists, writers, musicians behind bars. They contribute to our society's enrichment, our own enrichment.

Now to backtrack a little bit. nationalist, you have a damned ugly habit of putting words in other people's mouths. You constantly assume what people think and post it, frequently it is far from the truth. When you do this verbally, it's called slander. When you do it in print, it's called libel. Neither are protected forms of speech; not here, and not in society at large.

If you want to argue with me, stick to what I actually write and stop making up what you think I think. Next time, I'll be complaning to the Mods about it.

Next, your rush to assume what I thought led you to completely misinterpret what I actually did say. At no point have I written that people not directly affected by a murder should not be outraged. What I said was, only those directly affected have a right to want to actually torture someone themselves. Thinking that someone ought to be tortured and saying that they would be willing to do the actual torture themselves are two very different things. Someone who actually wants to torture another human being is sick. But I can understand that sickness in someone who is emense emotional distress caused by someone raping and murdering their own child. I cannot excuse it for a complete stranger. If you personally have the capacity to torture someone for any reason, then you are a dangerous person, and society needs to be protected from you.

It was pretty simple, actually. It took a lot of assumption and idiocy on your part to conflate it into its opposite.

	07-08-2002 23:40									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: then you're summarily dismissing rehabilitation from the list of possible prison reforms.

I am not dissmissing rehibilitation. Please stop misinterpreting what I say and trying to make everything I say look bad. In that statement I was merely saying that rehiblitaion in prison is not a deterant for murderers, unlike the death penalty, wich is a major deterent for murderers. I was in no way suggesting that rehibilitation in prisons should not be considered for other inmates, or for even murderers who get life in prison. Reread that statement with an open mind, instead of a apiteful one so you can support your frivolous arguements, and you will see what I said.

quote: So, given that you think that prisons need to be made even more hellish (since the constant threat of assault, rape, and murder in prison is too cushy), and given that you don't think that prisons ought to be reformed in order to place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, it's pretty easy to see where I drew the conclusion that you don't care at all about prison reform.

Yes... hmmm... I think someone watches too many movies. I dunno why it is so hard for you to believe that the US prison system is not hard on criminals at all, and barely serves as a deterant of crime. Assults happen, of course, but fights happen everywhere, Ive been in a couple myself even. Rape happens, but believ it or not, IIRC, most prisoners that wish to express their sexual desire through homosexuality, usually find a willing partner. If one were to be raped and guards were to do nothing about it, well thats sad, but that is hardly happens to all in prison and it is definately not a dterant to crime. Murder is quite rare. It definately happens, but almost never is it random. Instead it is between two fueding ganf members and such, who should know their death is a possibility that comes with the territory with being affiliated with a gang. Why you think hard labor would be HELLISH is beyond me. It would definately not be fun, but prison shouldnt be fun, but punishment and deterant to crime.

I gotta go now. But when I return I will finish reading your p[ost and reply.

	08-08-2002 01:27									#164
	Suffering from ads?

Finally, a response from you that isn't a complete ad hominem!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It is very difficult for us to tell what is innate in human behavior and what is learned behavior. However, anyone who stops to think about why a society might frown upon random murder (which you clearly have not done) can come up with a much better reason that a mere fear of devine retribution. Murder, and not just random murder (which is the rarest kind of all), from an individual stand point because exceedingly few individuals want to be murdered. From an individual standpoint, a prohibition against murder is a matter of self-defense. We agree not to murder each other so that we in turn will not be murdered. Also, we agree to help others not be murdered so that they in turn will help us not to be murdered. People, however, are not merely individuals, they are members of a social group. When a member of a society is removed by murder, that society is harmed. That person can no longer contribute, engage in the interpersonal relationships, etc. So we have a prohibition against murder also because we do not wish to see our society diminished by letting its members be murdered.

The self defense theory is more realist to me than the social network theory. Do you think that all of morality derives simply from the "I won't do it to them because I don't want them to do it to me" situation? This type of morality seems very easy to circumvent. How easily does it evolve into "I'm going to do it to them before they can do it to me" situation? There is no backbone to it , no ultimate authority that one can depend on when one faces a dilemma. I think that the idea is fairly sound, but it still stands on the foundation of religion. Even if the God doesn't actually exist, the belief that the God exists gives people more certainty, makes them think twice about violating their moral code when they face a problem. It is more valuable to a society than an implied social contract, it gives more of a face to the laws. People understand punishment better, and they set up a legal system that reflects this better understanding.

quote: The latter reason also extends to my political opposition to the death penalty. By executing someone, we destroy interpersonal bonds that include that person. The convicts family and friends did nothing to deserve having those bonds be broken. They did nothing to deserve the emotional torture that comes with having a loved one executed. Furthermore, by executing people, we remove the possibility that that person might be able to contribute to society.

I don't buy this argument at all. Murderers step out of society when they decide to kill. They have willingly cut their social bonds by doing something that is so unacceptable to society as a whole. This person has already disrupted his own social network, as well as the social bonds of his victim. He has no more legitimate connection to society. He has lost his right to be a part of the society.

quote: Once a murderer is safely behind bars and no longer a threat to society, they can actually become semi-productive. There are murderers who become artists, writers, musicians behind bars. They contribute to our society's enrichment, our own enrichment.

He has forfeited his right to create by taking away his victim's right to create. Any enrichment that he has contributed to his society is negated by the lost creative potential of the victim. If he wanted to be an artist, he shouldn't have murdered the 5 year old girl. He gets no second chance. His victim doesn't get one.

Now we get to the good stuuf:

quote: Now to backtrack a little bit. nationalist, you have a damned ugly habit of putting words in other people's mouths.

I have the damned ugly habit of doing just what everyone else does. PH was putting words in your mouth.Loinburger was doing it to everyone. PH was civil about it, at least.

You have the damned ugly habit of writing one thing, then become highly offended 3 posts later claiming that you mean something else. Maybe I misinterpret you, but you also misinterpret me to a high degree.

quote: You constantly assume what people think and post it, frequently it is far from the truth.

I base my assumptions of of what people post. Sometimes I don't have the time to be as nuanced as I could be if we were actually speaking. Othertimes I purposefully take things that people write on here to the extreme, just because they said something that irked me or appeared to me to be solely an ad hominem. Loinburger appears to do the same thing. He put words in my mouth, assuming that I thought that you were pro-murder or something silly like that. You do the same thing. Remember, YOU started this with an ad hominem, one that particularly irritated me.

quote: When you do this verbally, it's called slander. When you do it in print, it's called libel. Neither are protected forms of speech; not here, and not in society at large.

... thanks...

quote: If you want to argue with me, stick to what I actually write and stop making up what you think I think.

If you want to argue with me, then YOU should start off in a manner of discussion like you did in the first half of this post. Anything else will just result in a flame war.

quote: Next time, I'll be complaning to the Mods about it.

Go ahead. I don't really care.

quote: Next, your rush to assume what I thought led you to completely misinterpret what I actually did say. At no point have I written that people not directly affected by a murder should not be outraged. What I said was, only those directly affected have a right to want to actually torture someone themselves.

I understand what you are saying. But you started out with an ad hominem, so I figured that you could use some ad hominems yourself. I don't really care what you think about the torture thing, but if you are going to harshly attack others for a simple statement, then you deserve to be harshly attacked. Tell the mods. I'll show them your post. Maybe we'll both get banned. I suspect that it would bother you more than me.

quote: It was pretty simple, actually. It took a lot of assumption and idiocy on your part to conflate it into its opposite.

Actually, it took an ad hominem from you. I'd be willing to debate with you, but if you start out on the offensive I'm not going to take you seriously. You can question my intelligence all you want. You don't know me, making your insults meaningless. I know what I have accomplished, and I know what I am capable of. I certainly don't need your approval. I question your intelligence when I read your opinions, but that is what ideological enemies do. I doubt that we will ever see eye to eye. It doesn't really matter to me.

	08-08-2002 02:23									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I remember when this thread was a nice, calm, and rational debate about whither capital punishment was effective & justified. How did it become such a personal slugging match?

	08-08-2002 02:41									#166
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

nationalist, there was no ad hominum on my part. Kramerman said he would torture someone, though he has since recanted. If someone says they will torture someone, I'm gonna call them on it. Torture is sick and disgusting. People who are willing to engage in torture are a menace and society should be protected from them.

	08-08-2002 03:41									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara nationalist, there was no ad hominum on my part. Kramerman said he would torture someone, though he has since recanted. If someone says they will torture someone, I'm gonna call them on it. Torture is sick and disgusting. People who are willing to engage in torture are a menace and society should be protected from them.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!
I never recanted. I was never serious in the first place! How many times did i say it was just fanciful thoughts of mine? How many times must I say this. I am sorry, I dont have time to continue presently, I just saw this and had to respond.

	08-08-2002 04:58									#168
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman I never recanted. I was never serious in the first place!

You said it, then after being dragged over the coals for saying it, you said you wern't serious. That's recanting.

	08-08-2002 05:51									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You said it, then after being dragged over the coals for saying it, you said you wern't serious. That's recanting.

Here is what I said:

quote: That is too true... such bastards are probably deserving of torture. Death is a cake walk compared to what I would do if put in a room with a sicko like that...

'They are probably deserving of torture'... hmm... that doesnt sound like I want to mercilessly torture them, does it? But wait, there is more...

'Death is probably a cake walk compared to what I would do to them' ... I see. Well perhaps if I send you a picture of myself, you would see the hint of humor in this remark. Me, put into a room of a murderer... not a good idea, none the less I was refering to roughing them up abit in a brawl - not torture - but me roughing anyone up in a brawl is just fantasy. If you consider this torture, then probably every boy I know has 'tortured' someone in the school yard or someplace like that. If I would of known there would be a jerk like you to attack my integrity over such a frivoluce and fanciful remark, I would of held my tounge. But Oh well. For the 9th time I hope this clears up that i dont believe in torture (then again, this depends on your definition. Is corporal punishment torture? Is spanking your children after misbehaving torture? Is pulling someone's teeth torture? It is relative to what one thinks) and I never have. That is why I dont recant torturing people, cause I never wanted to in the first place. Previously Ive used two sentence posts to clarify things that I have said, but you are appearently malicious (i dunno why) and I have needed to write more to explain. Its ok as long as you understand. If not, well, I am sorry you completely misgauge my character .

Kman

EDIT: If you want to go on argueing over whether or not I want to torture people, very well. Though I do not believe in torture, who is anybody to say that R/P/M ( no, not rotations per minute, the other RPM...) should not be or should be tortured. It is relative I suppose, among other things...

	08-08-2002 06:23									#170
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

EDIT: PLEASE BEFORE YOU RESPOND, READ ALL MY FOLLOWING POSTS (two I BELIEVE). I DID A POOR JOB WRITING BECAUSE I WAS IN A RUSH, BUT IF YOU READ ALL I HAVE TO SAY ( I KINDA TIED MY IDEAS ALL TOGETHER) THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEANT.

quote: What rights are you referring to? Where did they get these rights if society wasn't giving them said rights?

After the Civil War all freedmen were givin the right to vote. However, mostly in the south, through intimidation and Jim Crow laws (like literacy tests, poll tax, and the 'grandfather law') black men were kept from voting in these regions. Through politics and corruption was the civil rights movement surrpressed for years, even though it was in America's best interest, blacks being American citizens after all.

quote: So, you'd say that slavery was justified/right/lawful/whatever since the majority of people two or three hundred years ago thought that slavery was fine and dandy? By the same token, was it fine for the Nazis to kill the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc. because German society at the time generally thought that these things were find and dandy?

*sigh* Do you read through my posts? Or do you just read certain things to try and spite me? I clearly wrote that laws need to be made to protect a society and everyone who lives in that society from harm. DID SLAVES NOT LIVE IN A SOCIETY? Of course they did. Slavery is obviously very harmful and unjustified against almost all. Therefore laws need to be made to protect thse members of society
from unjustified harm. If those slaves had become slaves because they murdered someone, than we can talk about justification. But almost all slaves were either captured into slavery or born into slavery and held there for little if any justification that they had harmed somebody in this society in anyway. Instead their justification is that 'they are inferior'. So be it, but they brought no harm to anyone, so no harm should be brought to them in the act of punishing and detering future acts of harm.

quote: They're only relative to a small extent, but for the most part they're fairly objective. You can't just arbitrarily redefine them or you run the risk of misapplying them.

Hold on a sec. You can very much so redifine arbitrarlily the definitions of good and evil. It is ver ignorant to think otherwise. An alien race on another planet could verywell find murder, thefy, lying, and everything else the 10 commandment frobid to be holy. TO THEM THAT IS GOOD! To us that may be evil, but thats because of your upbringing and such that you believe this. Our human culture has somewhat of a general concensus on the definitions of good and evil, but not all. Satanists may call themselves evil, but in their minds this has the same connotation as being the good guys. In otherwords, no matter what you believe, everybody thinks themselves to be one of the good guys, and then their enemy to be one of the bad guys. This is a complicated topic and it is hard for me to write it well, so I can understand confusion about this. If you have questions on what I mean please ask, but I think you should be able to fairly decipher what I am writing here.

	08-08-2002 06:34									#171
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: And who is to say that ALL American laws are "just" and "moral" in the world's eyes? Sounds like you're going for cultural relativism here... in which each culture, while in their own culture, is "right" and "just" and must respect the actions of other cultures. But once a country such as the US gets big enough they start enforcing their cultural relativism on other countries. The cultural relativism of the world (thinking of all the countries that have the DP vs those that don't) would be that the DP is wrong under those arguements.

Who said the US is just and moral. If i got that message across, I am sorry. I was just trying to associate that laws cant be made based on anyones morals, because everybody has different morals. Instead laws must be made to protect a society and those that live within a society from harm. If laws are based on this, it could very well contridict someones beliefs, but it could be justified as in the interests of holding the society together. Laws against murder and such protect citizens from harm, and therefore they dont have to worry about protecting themselves and could function in society. A law like no pre-marital sex is based on religious morals alone, and by outlawing this you are not protecting anyone from harm (argueably). In my dream society a law like this has no place. A law against theft (protects people from certain economc harm). I am sure someone will be quick to point out there are alot of things that can cause harm that arent outlawed, such as flying in a plane, or driving a car. Well, thats becasue harm from this is only a risk, and regulation such as mandatory seat belts are put in place to help negate these risks. Murder on the other hand, is going to harm some one 100% of the time, as will srealing someones things, etc. Please, ask questions. Do read what I say carefully. I understand I am not the best writer and I am probably not conveying my ideas across in the finest literature, but do try. I would like to not have to respond to another arguement because someone just misunderstood. But then again, you may find a viable flaw

Kman

EDIT: Flameflash, after rereading yourpost, I dont really know what you are trying to say/ask? Something about how the culture of the world would think poorly on the DP (If this is what you were trying to say, I am sorry but that is not true. A majority of the world population lives in societies that justify the DP) by some arguements. To what arguements are you refering? It is not my arguement I am quite sure, and if it is then either you misunderstood what I wrote or I just did a really poor job writing that post, which is probably more likely, because you wouldnt have been the first to misunderstand

	08-08-2002 07:29									#172
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by nationalist You answered your own question. Consistancy provides the substantive difference.

Consistency has nothing to do with irrationality. Irrational beliefs don't need to be consistent--they waive that requirement by virtue of the fact that they're irrational.

Therefore, if I base my morals on rational justifications, then consistency is a requirement. If I base my morals on irrational justifications, then consistency gets thrown out the window. "God says that unjustified killing is bad" is substantively equivalent to "God says that unjustified killing is good" because they're both irrational and hence consistency can't provide any distinction between them.

quote: There is no real basis for that consistancy.

Without consistency, you've got irrationality. That's the real basis for consistency: the fact that humans are, by and large, beings capable of reason and capable of recognizing the need for reason. Religion, on the other hand, is notoriously inconsistent due to the fact that it's irrational. Religious culture has nothing to do with consistency.

quote: I don't know if it is more irrational to believe that a higher power created the universe or to believe that it just created itself out of nothing.

I don't know either. That's why I don't believe in either.

quote: Moral consistancy and cultural relativism are, by nature, the result of our particular culture.

I'll agree that cultural relativism is a result of our particular culture (that's pretty much the definition of cultural relativism, after all), but human reason (and hence human consistency) is culturally independent.

quote: The basis of right and wrong is the idea that there are consequences to one's actions.

The basis of right and wrong is the idea that one ought to be righteous and not wicked--the carrot and stick are only thrown in for those who are weak-willed. You decide what kind of life you want to live, and you live it. By and large, people recognize that in order to live a good life they need to be a good person (primarily, I suspect, from their innate sense of reason). You only need carrots and sticks for the people who are too irrational or short-sighted to understand this.

quote: It is the belief that he does that has spawned the morality.

Even if this were the case, then why is belief in God still a requirement if society has taken God's place in wielding the carrots and sticks?

quote: It is called socialization. Indocrinations and taboos are just your way of labeling what a society decides is right and wrong.

Indoctrinations and taboos are my way of labelling what a society irrationally decides is right and wrong. If the answer to the question "Why is [insert "crime" here] wrong" is "Because it is taboo" (or some substantively equivalent response), then that is an insufficient and irrational justification for why the "crime" is wrong. The problem is that when you've had an indoctrination or taboo around long enough, people eventually decide that irrationality is a-ok with them. "It's taboo? Oh well then, I'd better not do it."

quote: Revenge is a type of justice.

It's a type of punishment, not a type of justice. In no way is it justice to inflict cruelty in such a self-serving manner. Justice is about doing what is right, about upholding morality. Revenge is about doing what feels good, about debasing oneself and society as a whole for self-gratification.

	08-08-2002 07:52									#173
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman I am not dissmissing rehibilitation.

It sure looked that way. I read that to say "Don't try to reform murderers, because then they'll want to commit murder."

quote: The statement in question Reform!? If someone could murder someone with the knowledge that they could be 'reformed' and put back in the streets, they might do so.

You were making it out like rehabilitation would increase the murder rate.

quote: In that statement I was merely saying that rehiblitaion in prison is not a deterant for murderers, unlike the death penalty, wich is a major deterent for murderers.

Read what you said. You said that rehabilitation would make it more likely for someone to commit murder. That's not saying that it's not a deterrent, that's saying that it's the opposite of a deterrent.

quote: Reread that statement with an open mind, instead of a apiteful one so you can support your frivolous arguements, and you will see what I said.

For God's sake, man, read what you're writing! You said that reform would increase the murder rate. I don't know how else your statement can be interpreted.

quote: I dunno why it is so hard for you to believe that the US prison system is not hard on criminals at all, and barely serves as a deterant of crime.

I can't believe you've led such an insular life that you can't understand how much crap goes on in prison.

I can't be arsed to go traipsing around the internet finding articles, so I just picked up this article, this article, and this article off of the front of the USA page on the Amnesty International website. A google search for "prison reform" ought to yield some results if you are at all interested in enlightening yourself.

quote: Why you think hard labor would be HELLISH is beyond me.

It's essentially torture.

	08-08-2002 08:16									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by nationalist Do you think that all of morality derives simply from the "I won't do it to them because I don't want them to do it to me" situation?

Not all of it, but certainly most of it.

quote: This type of morality seems very easy to circumvent. How easily does it evolve into "I'm going to do it to them before they can do it to me" situation?

They're very different situations, so I don't see how the first naturally leads into the second. "Morality" and "preemptive strikes" don't exactly go hand in hand...

quote: There is no backbone to it , no ultimate authority that one can depend on when one faces a dilemma.

An appeal to rational consistency is often all that you need to deal with a dilemma. Things get a bit more complicated when two (or more) people aren't on the same page WRT consistency, i.e. if person A consistently adheres to rational behavior type 1 and person B consistently adheres to rational behavior type 2, where type 1 behavior is mutually exclusive to type 2 behavior. However, with something like unjustified killing, it is fair to say that all rational parties are on the same page WRT consistency, i.e. nobody wants to be unjustly deprived of their life.

quote: I think that the idea is fairly sound, but it still stands on the foundation of religion.

Religion usually doesn't require internal consistency or rationality.

quote: Even if the God doesn't actually exist, the belief that the God exists gives people more certainty, makes them think twice about violating their moral code when they face a problem.

This is only a requirement if the person's moral code was arrived at irrationally, i.e. "don't do [insert "crime"] because it is taboo." If the person's moral code was arrived at rationally, i.e. "don't do [insert crime] because it violates the Golden Rule," then carrots and sticks aren't necessary for dilemma resolution.

quote: Any enrichment that he has contributed to his society is negated by the lost creative potential of the victim.

Depriving society of potential enrichment to avenge the death of somebody's lost ability to potentially enrich society seems pretty futile. Reasoning like this is what resulted in the saying, "If 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is the rule of law, then all you get is a society full of citizens without eyes and teeth."

quote: Loinburger was doing it to everyone.

I was putting words in everybody's mouth? You mean like when I "misinterpreted" Kramerman saying that he wanted to torture somebody? Or like when I "misinterpreted" you when you said "If you aren't outraged by his crime then you are the sick ****" WRT Che's outrage at everybody's willingness to torture murderers? Maybe I wouldn't "put words in people's mouths" if they didn't post things that they don't even mean.

quote: Loinburger appears to do the same thing. He put words in my mouth, assuming that I thought that you were pro-murder or something silly like that.

You were asserting that Che wasn't properly outraged at murderers by virtue of the fact that he is opposed to torture, which was a pretty lousy assertion on your part. Then you were offended by some hyperbole. C'est la vie.

	08-08-2002 08:34									#175
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman *sigh* Do you read through my posts? Or do you just read certain things to try and spite me? I clearly wrote that laws need to be made to protect a society and everyone who lives in that society from harm.

You wrote no such thing. You wrote:

quote: The statement in question: You must base laws on what betters society in that societies general view of betterment.

A society's general view of betterment could very easily incorporate the repression or even extermination of a minority. There was nothing about protecting everyone who lives in the society from harm that I saw (unless you contradicted yourself somewhere, because "general view of betterment" does not automatically mean "everyone who lives in the society is protected from harm").

quote: DID SLAVES NOT LIVE IN A SOCIETY? Of course they did. Slavery is obviously very harmful and unjustified against almost all. Therefore laws need to be made to protect thse members of society from unjustified harm.

What if the majority of the society's members think that slaves are property and may be treated as any other property? Why would their "general view of betterment" be incorrect?

quote: Hold on a sec. You can very much so redifine arbitrarlily the definitions of good and evil.

Nope, you've got to remain internally consistent with your definitions, and your definitions also have to adhere to the objective definitions within language. If I were to pick up a rotten orange and say "This orange is good for sating one's hunger because it is rotten and will cause whoever eats it to get sick and possibly die," then I will have misapplied the term "good" in that sentence.

quote: It is ver ignorant to think otherwise. An alien race on another planet could verywell find murder, thefy, lying, and everything else the 10 commandment frobid to be holy. TO THEM THAT IS GOOD!

They're not changing the definition of the word, they're merely applying the word to things that we would not. This hypothetical alien race feels that murder, theft, and lying are desirable and righteous, therefore they can apply the term "good" to them.

	08-08-2002 09:21									#176
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman Here is what I said: quote: That is too true... such bastards are probably deserving of torture. Death is a cake walk compared to what I would do if put in a room with a sicko like that... 'They are probably deserving of torture'... hmm... that doesnt sound like I want to mercilessly torture them, does it? But wait, there is more... 'Death is probably a cake walk compared to what I would do to them' ... I see.

Even with the words you wrote right in front of you, you cannot admit what you wrote. You had to add the word "probably." I'm sorry, you didn't use the word probably. "Death is a cake walk compared to what I would do if put in a room with a sicko like that." There is no "probably" in that sentence. You are stating that given the chance, you would do worse than death to them.

quote: I was refering to roughing them up abit in a brawl - not torture - but me roughing anyone up in a brawl is just fantasy.

I took you at your word. I don't know about you, but death is definately not a cake walk to being roughed up a little bit. I'll take a beating over death any day. Hell, you can break my arms and legs, stick a plunger up my ass and beat me 'till Tuesday if it's that or death. I have a low pain threshhold, but a beating wouldn't have me begging to die.

Now, the fact that you claim to be incapable of performing the actions doesn't mean much. Goebbels was a meely little squid of a man, and look what he accomplished. Just because a murderer could probably eat for breakfast doesn't mean that you would be incapable of doing unspeakable things to him. Most torture victims are restrained, so your safety isn't a factor. More important was you saying that you really didn't mean it. I'm glad. Only truly disturbed individuals could do that to someone else, regardless of whether "such bastards are probably deserving of torture."

But I'm not arguing with whether or not you meant it, you already admitted you didn't mean it. What I was arguing with since then was nationalist's mischaraterizations of what I wrote. nationalist made up in his own little mind what I thought and ran with it. Since the argument was about you originally, some things needed to be cleared up for him.

	08-08-2002 09:47									#177
	Tired of ads?

quote: Even with the words you wrote right in front of you, you cannot admit what you wrote. You had to add the word "probably." I'm sorry, you didn't use the word probably. "Death is a cake walk compared to what I would do if put in a room with a sicko like that." There is no "probably" in that sentence. You are stating that given the chance, you would do worse than death to them.

wtf? probably is right there in front of your face

quote: such bastards are probably deserving of torture.

EDIT: I noticed the second probably that you were refering to. I was retyping that sentence by hand. I must have sub-consciously inserted that second probably because the word was on my mind after trying to emphasize it in the first part to show you my non-seriousness. But no matter. It was purely an accident, that second probably should not be there, you are quite right.

	08-08-2002 10:22									#178
	Increase Your PM Length

Never argue with a master debater.

	08-08-2002 18:29									#179
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: EDIT: Flameflash, after rereading yourpost, I dont really know what you are trying to say/ask? Something about how the culture of the world would think poorly on the DP (If this is what you were trying to say, I am sorry but that is not true. A majority of the world population lives in societies that justify the DP) by some arguements. To what arguements are you refering? It is not my arguement I am quite sure, and if it is then either you misunderstood what I wrote or I just did a really poor job writing that post, which is probably more likely, because you wouldnt have been the first to misunderstand

*sighs*

You guys are all talking over my head now, actually... I probably misread your post, however a majority of the "civilized" countries don't support it... that's the community of the world that the US is supposed to be a part of, I'd thought.

I'll try and continue to follow this, because I do find it interesting, but you guys are most certainly my better on debating this kind of stuff.

My head hurts now...

Let me guess, che... you did ethical debate?

<-- Policy debater here... probably why I'm sucking it up in getting a grasp on what's going on.

	08-08-2002 19:26									#180
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by FlameFlash *sighs*

Don't back down from a good point. I mean, heck, you pointed out about the biggest criticism of cultural relativism, namely "which culture's justice system is the best?" Like you said, the world community that the US is supposedly a part of by and large is against CP, which would either mean that the US has a better justice system than every other like-minded culture or that the US has a justice system that is fifty to a hundred years behind those of like-minded cultures (and, this being a good instance in which the majority rules, the latter is the more likely scenario). If a nation is going to spread its culture around the place, it first had better make damn sure that it's a culture worth spreading.