(March 29, 2009 at 5:44 pm)Meatball Wrote:

(March 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I don't really believe in rights at all let alone ones that are inalienable. Rights don't exist unless someone can defend/enforce them.

Well obviously rights are a concept we've created and try to apply to society.

Better ... I now tend to think of rights as devolving from responsibilities so I have the responsibility to ensure you (and others) have freedom of speech as do you and that that is what gives us all the perceived "right" to free speech.

(March 29, 2009 at 5:44 pm)Meatball Wrote: I think any government should do everything within their power to recognize that people should have a right to life, a right to free speech, right to assemble, etc..., and that the government should do their best to enforce these standards.

Not sure about that ... I certainly would prefer to live under an administration that went that way. I suppose my problem is that such "rights" are too idealistic for me.

(March 29, 2009 at 5:44 pm)Meatball Wrote: Obviously nobody can guarantee life, but a government should recognize that nobody is justified in taking another's life, saving extreme circumstances.

I think I would prefer to say that we all have the responsibility to try and ensure each of us stays alive, in good health and reasonable standard of living ... a kind of duty of care thing.

In the end I guess I'm just unhappy with the whole idea of innate or inalienable rights or indeed a culture that perceives them to be somehow independent of responsibility (which I think many in our society do).

Kyu

Quote:I think any government should do everything within their power to recognize that people should have a right to life, a right to free speech, right to assemble, etc..., and that the government should do their best to enforce these standards.

Obviously nobody can guarantee life, but a government should recognize that nobody is justified in taking another's life, saving extreme circumstances.

Well,yes,I DID read your post ,and responded to what you actually said. You said "a government should RECOGNISE that no one is justified in taking another life except in extreme circumstances." My positions remains that your claim is based on moral value. I reject that claim as a principle because I reject the notion of absolute moral imperatives.I also believe government is properly based on the pragmatic consideration of the greatest good for the greatest number which is based on moral relativism.[/quote]

If we disagree, I agree to differ.If I've misunderstood,perhaps it's because you expressed yourself poorly.In either case,I have nothing further to say to you on this topic.

I live in PA, and I'm against the death penalty. How can you put someone to death for a crime, when this country was built on crimes?

I am against it...no matter how sure people can be...they can still be wrong - and the risk of killing innocent people is too great.

And based on the fact I don't believe in 'Free will' (by the 'more traditional definiton' anyway - as I argued on another thread) - I have problems with it anyway...I think punishment in and of itself is immoral ( so if it does no good for anyone at all) - or at least pointless.

The only case could be for me - perhaps if there is some criminal that is so relentless and such an expert criminal that he could escape so easily...but I still have trouble conceiving of anything where TDP would be reasonable.

Painless disposal perhaps - if they're doing no good for anyone (and we need more room in prisons anyway don't we? - heck we need more room altogether) - but! - once again you still get into the problem of "What is they're innocent?" - they'd have to have been proven like something like: genetically proven even then for it to not be immoral, I say.

But basically: If it was a choice between the risk of either letting an 'evil' criminal go or ending up killing an innocent person...if that risk is present I'd go for the 'no penalty' every time.

EvF

(June 12, 2009 at 3:41 pm)TRUTH1986 Wrote: I live in PA, and I'm against the death penalty. How can you put someone to death for a crime, when this country was built on crimes?

Tu qouque fallacy. (look it up). Nazi war criminals used the same argument during the Nuremberg trials;EG The ALLIES bombed Dresden,and used the atom bomb. The ALLIES committed terrible crimes,how can you judge us?That defence was rejected and is not accepted in courts anywhere that I'm aware..


Plus, the claim that "this country was built on crimes" is an opinion based on a moral judgment,not a statement of fact.

Plus, using that argument one could also ask,"name ONE country which was not so formed"

There is no moral justification for capital punishment nor does the deterrent argument hold water. However,there are sound pragmatic arguments .(assuming one also abolishes that pesky appeal process).

(June 12, 2009 at 8:43 pm)padraic Wrote:

(June 12, 2009 at 3:41 pm)TRUTH1986 Wrote: I live in PA, and I'm against the death penalty. How can you put someone to death for a crime, when this country was built on crimes?

Tu qouque fallacy. (look it up). Nazi war criminals used the same argument during the Nuremberg trials;EG The ALLIES bombed Dresden,and used the atom bomb. The ALLIES committed terrible crimes,how can you judge us?That defence was rejected and is not accepted in courts anywhere that I'm aware..


Plus, the claim that "this country was built on crimes" is an opinion based on a moral judgment,not a statement of fact.

Plus, using that argument one could also ask,"name ONE country which was not so formed"

There is no moral justification for capital punishment nor does the deterrent argument hold water. However,there are sound pragmatic arguments .(assuming one also abolishes that pesky appeal process).

TRUTH1986 is quite correct, was it not a crime that the indigenous red people of America had their lands stolen from them by the white man?
I'm against thhe death penalty too.

(June 13, 2009 at 12:37 pm)bozo Wrote: TRUTH1986 is quite correct, was it not a crime that the indigenous red people of America had their lands stolen from them by the white man?

Not really ... if you look far enough back in the history of any nation you'll find the violent possession of things belonging to others, the ruling classes of any nation are just those whose ancestors were the biggest, baddest motherfuckers on the block.

Moreover there is evidence that the North American Indian crossed to the Americas via a land bridge between old world and new (the Bering Land Bridge) and wiped out the "original" natives so, if you are going to use the logic of original possession, one can argue that they have no greater right to their lands than anyone else (unfortunately those originals no longer exist).

Maybe we should make reparations to the Neanderthals?

Kyu

(June 13, 2009 at 1:25 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 13, 2009 at 12:37 pm)bozo Wrote: TRUTH1986 is quite correct, was it not a crime that the indigenous red people of America had their lands stolen from them by the white man?

Not really ... if you look far enough back in the history of any nation you'll find the violent possession of things belonging to others, the ruling classes of any nation are just those whose ancestors were the biggest, baddest motherfuckers on the block.

Moreover there is evidence that the North American Indian crossed to the Americas via a land bridge between old world and new (the Bering Land Bridge) and wiped out the "original" natives so, if you are going to use the logic of original possession, one can argue that they have no greater right to their lands than anyone else (unfortunately those originals no longer exist).

Maybe we should make reparations to the Neanderthals?

I don't know about your assertion re. north american indians killing other indians, but even so that is not the same as what the white americans did to the indigenous red tribes, which was a crime by anybody's definition.

Kyu

I am "For" the death penalty...

I don't give a shit about how much it costs, or any BS moral argument that someone tries and puts forth by sugar coating it with who is in the right or wrong for taking a life.

The one thing I hate hearing the most is for someone to bring up how inhumane the death penalty is. tell the parents or widowed husbands how inhumane it is to take the life of a murder that just raped and killed their wives and/or children...I'm sure they will understand completely...
Humans euthanize bad animals all the time. When a person does the most inhumane act such as murder, he/she is not longer human in my book, and has became an animal themselves.

I'll make it plain and simple; if someone were to rape or kill my wife or children, the police better catch them first. If not, then I will become the judge, jury and executioner for this animal...

(June 13, 2009 at 1:49 pm)bozo Wrote: I don't know about your assertion re. north american indians killing other indians, but even so that is not the same as what the white americans did to the indigenous red tribes, which was a crime by anybody's definition.

I disagree ... I believe you have simply decided it is different when there is no specific evidence to support your assertion.

Kyu