The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[The Grand Nudger]

Very much seems that people are defining behavior as "inhuman" along the lines of how they think we should act. Despite evidence to the contrary. Seen many serial killing bonobos or koala bears? Even lions aren't serial killers and their existence is based entirely around killing. These things which we detest so much are very often singularly human, nothing "inhuman" about them. I've done many terrible things, am I "inhuman"? Before anyone even asks or goes down this road, I feel remorse for half of it at the very most, and most of that half isn't even high on the list of inhuman shit (even giving myself half is probably an exaggeration to make myself look better). I have an immense amount of pride in a great deal of it, so conflicting, lol. I agree that our ideas of what we should do, and how we should act are superior to what we can actually be shown to be doing, how we can be shown to be acting. That said, why is the death penalty not part and parcel with the nastier shit that we do, but shouldn't? It gets a pass. If you kill someone because you catch them murdering your wife that's justified vengeance (yes?). If the state were to kill someone for murdering your wife vengeance isn't even a factor (or at least that's what some folks are selling). People get heated on this issue, but lets call a spade a spade ffs.

[reverendjeremiah]

The point is that I do not see it as dehumanizing. Calling a person "it" is not necessarily dehumanizing. The fact of the matter is, you would have to actually consider a person not a human to dehumanize them. You have to take away their human traits or ignore their human traits. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

it
1     [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun
pronoun
1.
(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.
2.
(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.
3.
(used to represent a group understood or previously mentioned): The judge told the jury it must decide two issues.
4.
(used to represent a concept or abstract idea understood or previously stated): It all started with Adam and Eve. He has been taught to believe it all his life.
5.
(used to represent an action or activity understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned): Since you don't like it, you don't have to go skiing.
===
Fine. You are absolutely correct in saying that calling them "it" is not dehumanizing. In the very strict sense of the definition you are correct.
So then, I ask that those who call murderers "it" to clarify the reason WHY they call them "it" in the first place. What is your intention of calling murderers and rapists "it" in the first place.

If you want me to understand, and NOT misunderstand you..then please clarify why Rapists and murderers are "its". I am an open minded person. Here is your chance to correct and change my point of view.

No, they didn't. Just because you spout propaganda to make someone hate another race doesn't mean you actually believe it. Furthermore, even if every Nazi believed the lies, it was the lie that dehumanized them, not the truth. Serial killers are murderers. Therein lies the difference, rev.

well, not really. That isnt propaganda that I was trying to spout. I was merely trying to give examples. If you considered it propaganda, then I apologize, that was not my intention

Do you need to defend yourself psychologically from everyone who opposes you?

Sometimes I do, sometimes I dont. Remember, we are talking about allowing the state to kill people for killing people. The concept alone is seemingly self contradictory. The concept is also fraught with emotional baggage. So yes, I would say psychology would be a factor played on ALL sides of this specific debate...as it should. If it wasnt, then I would suggest that the topic was being held back.

Honestly, and I say this sincerely, without malice, you do seem to go off rather easily.

I am a man of great passion. It has its good points and bad points, depending on what side you look at it from.

The path you are taking with your "logic" can lead all over the place. The same argument could be used for "Oh, do I get to stab ONLY serial killers in my home or anyone I don't want there?"

I consider that a legitimate question that would be relative to this discussion, albeit a bit stressed. If I killed everyone I didnt want there, that would make me a serial killer also, wouldnt it? My MO would be "kills everyone in his home who he doesnt want there". It would also be questioned "did he invite them in and then kill them?" or "was he killing intruders?". If I personally killed a serial killer (otherwise known on this thread as "it") wouldnt I be doing society a favor and therefore considered a hero?
I am open to all questions.

"Do I get to block my face from being punched ONLY from a serial killer or anyone who is trying to punch me?"

umm...

No..LOL. This is more of a self defense question and not about the death penalty in my opinion.

It's a strange idea that you should now be PC about your self preservation methods.

I dont consider state sanctioned executions to be "self preservation methods" nor do I consider them PC.

If you can do it to one, you can do it to all? I mean, really. I dislike serial killers. I don't dislike everyone who opposes me as a result.

Im glad to hear that

I dislike serial killers as well. I just think that instead of chopping the problems head off, we should instead FIX the problem.

Yes, because I'm not the word police, as long as you spell it right.

That should have ended with a smiley face

Yes, because I'm not the word police, as long as you spell it right.

there..that looks much better.

They are the same thing, really. One simply connotes sex.

So then if we were talking about Jefferey Dahmers, and Epi called him "it", then you would post something to the tune of "no epi..Jefferey is a "him", not an "it".
Intent is very important in my questioning of calling serial killers and rapists as "it".

What is YOUR intent in using "it"? What is Epi's intent in using "it"?

Bah. Slippery slope. Epi is not going to commit genocide because he doesn't hold hands with serial killers.

Yes, I agree. Calling Humans "it" on purpose when you are aware of their sex opens a new can of worms and is indeed a slippery slope. Next we will be calling them "demons".
I hear you, and I am just acting silly because I disagree with you thinking my original statement was a slippery slope.
I am also aware that you did not mean that I hold hands with serial killers either. you were merely making a statement of fact.

Another slippery slope.

I agree. When you know the sex of the rapist, and still insist on calling him and "it" is very much a slippery slope that can lead to even more slippery slopes.
I hear you, and I am just acting silly because I disagree with you thinking my original statement was a slippery slope.

[Shell B]

Fine. You are absolutely correct in saying that calling them "it" is not dehumanizing. In the very strict sense of the definition you are correct.
So then, I ask that those who call murderers "it" to clarify the reason WHY they call them "it" in the first place. What is your intention of calling murderers and rapists "it" in the first place.

I'm not the person you want to ask.

If you want me to understand, and NOT misunderstand you..then please clarify why Rapists and murderers are "its". I am an open minded person. Here is your chance to correct and change my point of view.

Because all people are its.

well, not really. That isnt propaganda that I was trying to spout. I was merely trying to give examples. If you considered it propaganda, then I apologize, that was not my intention

No, no. I didn't consider what you said propaganda. What the Nazis "thought" was propaganda. You can't spread lies without knowing they are untrue. They knew it.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I dont.

Well, there you have it. Calling everyone its does not necessarily follow from calling serial killers its.

The path you are taking with your "logic" can lead all over the place. The same argument could be used for "Oh, do I get to stab ONLY serial killers in my home or anyone I don't want there?"

I consider that a legitimate question that would be relative to this discussion, albeit a bit stressed. If I killed everyone I didnt want there, that would make me a serial killer also, wouldnt it? My MO would be "kills everyone in his home who he doesnt want there". It would also be questioned "did he invite them in and then kill them?" or "was he killing intruders?". If I personally killed a serial killer (otherwise known on this thread as "it") wouldnt I be doing society a favor and therefore considered a hero?[/quote]

Now you're jumping again. You are trying to say that one extreme follows another, simpler position. Now, you are saying people would probably stop themselves from going to the further extreme. Which is it? Are people who call serial killers it genocidal maniacs or not?

umm...

No..LOL. This is more of a self defense question and not about the death penalty in my opinion.

*sigh* Yes, but you brought in an analogy. I showed you that your analogy is ludicrous. Insulting a group of murderers does not mean you will insult everyone.

I dont consider state sanctioned executions to be "self preservation methods" nor do I consider them PC.

Rev, you brought in all of these other scenarios and, when I address them, you act like I am going off-topic. We weren't talking about executions being self-preservation. We were talking about dehumanizing being a defense mechanism. You followed that it would then extend to races, which is silly considering hating a murderer doesn't make you a racist. I then said that I don't agree with having to be PC about it and you then said the above statement. It doesn't follow. Are we talking about the "it" thing or the death penalty thing, because I'm relatively certain our conversation has been on the former.

Im glad to hear that

I dislike serial killers as well. I just think that instead of chopping the problems head off, we should instead FIX the problem.

Careful. You might commit genocide and lynch blacks now.

So then if we were talking about Jefferey Dahmers, and Epi called him "it", then you would post something to the tune of "no epi..Jefferey is a "him", not an "it".
Intent is very important in my questioning of calling serial killers and rapists as "it".

I wouldn't tell him what language to use. If he were writing something for me, I would ask that he change it to suit AP style, but, I assure you, AP is not the only grammatical style. Some allow for the it factor.

What is YOUR intent in using "it"? What is Epi's intent in using "it"?

I don't believe I did use it, apart from making points in this conversation.

Yes, I agree. Calling Humans "it" on purpose when you are aware of their sex opens a new can of worms and is indeed a slippery slope. Next we will be calling them "demons".

I meant it in the fallacy sense of the word. It's a slippery slope that is entirely unlikely and backed up by absolutely no explanation on your part. A does not lead to C. If Epi were already a racist or a prick, I would say maybe it is likely for him to run around calling all sorts of people names, but I could call Stat an idiot and you don't jump all over me saying how, "If you start with him, you'll be calling everyone idiots!" Selective a bit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, since you brought him up, I hate that "it". In fact, religious people aren't people at all, they're religious "it"s. As such I don't have to give a shit whether or not they're treated like human beings, because they aren't.

[Shell B]

You're not even making a good, sarcastic point. You are both objecting to two things that would, by necessity of consistency, warrant other objections that neither of you make. You can't call serial killers its, but you can call libertarians Nazis? Oh, there's a slippery slope. Next thing you know you will be calling all blacks crackheads and all Jews bankers. (There was a lesson in sarcasm, Rhythm. )

[The Grand Nudger]

No, you're absolutely right, we should call Nazis Nazis, Crackheads Crackheads, and Bankers Bankers. Oh, and people...people. We don't always, obviously, but we probably should. Unless you'd like to tell me why the religious aren't "it"s, and serial killers are.
(I'm as guilty as any, doesn't make me right. Perhaps that's why language and opinions like this have no place in discussions of what should or should not be engaged in as part of a system of justice. We're trying to reduce the nasty side of ourselves, not accommodate or satisfy it.)

[Shell B]

So, instead of calling a dog "it," I should call it dog? Instead of calling a fish "it," I should call it fish? The level of absurdity this PC angle is taking confounds me. Who says what we "should" do? You? Rev? Sure, there are some things that are widely considered inappropriate, but I find it ridiculous to be so up in arms about a choice of words that has no history of hate, no history of violence and nothing whatsoever to distinguish it as the horrible thing it is being portrayed as here. What are you guys, the Knight who say Nee?

Oh, and the Nazis don't count. They didn't kill Jews for being "its." Give me one example of a person actually causing harm to another because the one considered the other an "it."

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQfGd3G6dg "Ah, he said it again!"

[The Grand Nudger]

You're right, not everyone feels that every person is a human being, that's something I've decided for myself. That's the slope Rev is talking about. If we want to engage in this sort of shit then what grounds do we have to tell the Klansman that he can't, or shouldn't? This group of human beings I don't like are it's, the group you don't like are people. Not very convincing, if you ask me. Last I checked we didn't subject "it"s to our system of justice either. So they're human enough for a trial, but not enough for the title. Fair enough, I just disagree.

As far as Nazis, they didn't consider them to be quite as human as they considered themselves, obviously. All of the animals (including the human ones) we've exterminated on this rock would like to have a word with you about the harm of being considered an "it". Hell, isn't the mindset of a type of serial killer that their victims are "it"s? Or a slave owner to the slave, an "it"...... not a person? Nah, no slope here. Dehumanization doesn't lead to anything harmful at all.

I draw the line at people. I probably do that because it's in my own best interests. I am dismissive of other species because they are not people (they're different than me, very much so). Is this position consistent overall when applied against serial killers, who are also different than me? No. Let's not pretend that Epi's (or anyone else who holds this opinion) is any different. At least I'm falling back on species as a difference. Serial killers as "it"s has a little tougher of an argument to make. So I'm being PC about human bveings, and? Are you calling me a pussy again?

[Shell B]

Uh, because he uses racist language specifically to disparage an entire race of people and uses violence to enforce his belief system?

[The Grand Nudger]

And Epi uses "it" ( a slur for a person he doesn't like) to justify a system of violence meant to exterminate all of the "it"s who he believes to be less than human as well...so? Don't facepalm me, lol.

"But they really are shitbag serial killers" says the "it"ist

"But they really are shitbag (insert ethnic slur)" says the racist.

Now, I'm not calling Epi a racist, nothing of the sort, I understand why he feels the way he does, I share the sentiment. Again..it's simply my opinion that it has no place in law with regards to the death penalty. "It" cannot be used as a justification for executions. It's his opinion, not a fact. Fact is, a serial killer is a human being. Cut and dry. They don't lose this classification when they commit a crime, and if killing people is wrong, it isn't made right by deciding to call them "it". If we find ourselves staring at a moral dilemma, it doesn't go away simply by redefinition (unless you're Statler fucking Waldork, or GC..to bring it full circle).

(and again, because I can never say this enough, those people we deem to be "it"s...sometimes just happen to be innocent, just happen to be people after all. Not alot, but even once is too many times, for me. I know that both you and Epi feel the same way, the two of you have more confidence in our ability to be certain, even if only in theory. That's the difference in opinion.)