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

[Autumnlicious]

Justifying the death penalty because they are inhuman trash, using dehumanizing language to make putting them to death palatable?

Wanting to get at the "serial killers" and damn the innocent men we may sentence to death, because our justice system is so perfect or we artificially limit "who" gets the death penalty (disregarding the invariable circumstance when someone is charged and railroaded anyways)?

Wanting to keep a death penalty under cause of "they might escape"?

If face palming was an option here, there would be no more faces to be palmed.

[Shell B]

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.

If I had a dick, I would stamp you in the forehead, at this point. His justification doesn't appear to be the "it" thing. In fact, part of his justification leads to the "it" thing.

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

Provable by means of simply talking to the person in question.

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

Easily disproved by means of speaking to a group of the people in question. It may be proved by talking to all of them as well, though unlikely.

My point is that you can easily categorize the behavior of a serial killer as inhuman, by the actual definition of the word, not the literal sense I often go by. Therefore, it only follows that they be treated as they behave. Do you smile and wave at people who push you in line?

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".

Duh. It still doesn't mean that he is in any way politically incorrect by calling them its. A human is a human. That's a given. What we call them has naught to do with it. He is expressing his distaste for them and separating himself from them. Natural, normal and okay.

(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.

This is what happens when a thread veers from topic. The two issues are not combined on that level. Epi was not referring to accused serial killers as its or even convicted ones, specifically. He was referring to serial killers as its, which is a sight different.

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.)

I don't have confidence in our ability to be certain all the time. I have told you this. I think that in rare circumstances where the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, exceptions could be made.

---

Justifying the death penalty because they are inhuman trash, using dehumanizing language to make putting them to death palatable?

Now, that is a touch too far. I agree that the level of our distaste for them should have nothing to do with using the death penalty. However, using the term "it" in an of itself is not a problem for me.

Wanting to get at the "serial killers" and damn the innocent men we may sentence to death, because our justice system is so perfect or we artificially limit "who" gets the death penalty (disregarding the invariable circumstance when someone is charged and railroaded anyways)?

Is that what he suggested? Did he actually say, "I agree with the death penalty as it stands now. Collateral damage is not an issue for me." It is possible to agree with the death penalty and not want to kill innocent people, you know.

Wanting to keep a death penalty under cause of "they might escape"?

There is a very real threat of them escaping. Downplaying that and upplaying (for lack of a better term, as I find the execution of innocent men just as distasteful as you. I simply use the term to show the imbalance between the two potentials for innocent death being applied here) is kind of strange. "Oh, they might get out." said in sarcasm shows an ignorance of how many of them actually escape and kill more people or stay in jail and kill more people. There is a real threat and, yes, people can be threats. They can be other adjectives used to describe objects as well.

If face palming was an option here, there would be no more faces to be palmed.

I agree. I am relatively certain that each and every person here has said something illogical based on their own emotions. However, I will facepalm when Rhythm shows his "typing before thinking" side.

---

Christ, I always miss your addendums.

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?

No, not calling you a pussy. I simply disagree with your terms. Serial killers are, presumably, very different from you and I. Again, it is natural and acceptable to distance yourself from that. Why is it okay for someone to say something like, "Those sick fucks." "Demented assholes.", etc., but not okay to refer to them as it. Fucks are only human pronouns in slang. A corpse is an it. Groups of people are its. Such as "The crowd moved across the room. It did so quickly." (Gosh, that is robotic.) At any rate, you get my point. I am positive that, given some time, I can find a thread where you are not so PC about humans. It's inconsistent. That's all.

You can't "dehumanize" them, but you can call them cunts, dicks, fucks, douches, asshats, fucktards, idiots, assholes, dumbasses, stupid asses, crazy, stupid, dumb, illogical, insane, fairy tale lovers, gullible, pricks, cocks, pussies, etc.? A douche is an object. An ass is an animal. A cunt, a dick, an asshole . . . all body parts, not people, but you can call people that without tall guys in the forest shrieking and covering their ears.

[Autumnlicious]

Wanting to get at the "serial killers" and damn the innocent men we may sentence to death, because our justice system is so perfect or we artificially limit "who" gets the death penalty (disregarding the invariable circumstance when someone is charged and railroaded anyways)?

Is that what he suggested? Did he actually say, "I agree with the death penalty as it stands now. Collateral damage is not an issue for me." It is possible to agree with the death penalty and not want to kill innocent people, you know.

You, Epi and others have not provided any real answer to the question of sentencing the wrong people to death. You (referring to your side) have routinely brought up special cases, ranging from inmate escapes (really? make the prison better -- escape means the security is shitty.) to the "serial killer problem" (in which you specifically target serial killers under the pretense of them "not being rare").

This would communicate this to me:
1) You have no answer to our concerns, so thus "damn any innocent man who does manage to slip through" (of which we do know happens, and happens more than we'd like) [innocence project].
2) You'd rather get your dead man, whatever category, class, crime, etc,.
3) "Who" deserves death doesn't matter -- you'll cleverly increase or decrease the qualifiers for whom deserves state-sponsored death with rationalizations and emotional appeals, not objective measures (which brings it's own flamefest of trouble, I'm afraid).

So no, whether you "want" to avoid executing innocent people or not, it doesn't fucking matter.

You're arguing for a system that fundamentally is structured with "no take backs" in mind. And to add salt to the wound, you're arguing for a system chaired by men in one of the most religious nations on this planet.

Frankly, knowing the batshit in the air, I'm surprised that you wouldn't be back pedaling on this (if not for logic, for the consequences such advice, given the society you live in).

Wanting to keep a death penalty under cause of "they might escape"?

There is a very real threat of them escaping. Downplaying that and upplaying (for lack of a better term, as I find the execution of innocent men just as distasteful as you. I simply use the term to show the imbalance between the two potentials for innocent death being applied here) is kind of strange. "Oh, they might get out." said in sarcasm shows an ignorance of how many of them actually escape and kill more people or stay in jail and kill more people. There is a real threat and, yes, people can be threats. They can be other adjectives used to describe objects as well.

Shell, if these "men" under jurisdiction and watch of the state escape, it means this:
The prison is flawed and some process was shoddy enough to allow for that escape.

And if you argue the "threat angle", why don't you bloody come out with it and just admit you want them on the firing line upon their first escape attempt?

Because that's what you're going to get to if you insist on blaming ridiculous failure of the prison (which, last I checked, exists solely to hold these people for a set period of time).

It is more likely your "serial killer" will get clemency from a Governor Huckabee than escape by their own hand.

[Shell B]

You, Epi and others have not provided any real answer to the question of sentencing the wrong people to death.

Yes, I have. I have repeatedly said that I do not agree with the death sentence in this legal system. Because I say I would agree with the death penalty in a legal system that eliminated the chance of executing innocent people does not mean I have to come up with an answer to the question of how to create such a system, though I have made suggestions . . . already. I simply do not 100% disagree with the death penalty.

You (referring to your side) have routinely brought up special cases, ranging from inmate escapes (really? make the prison better -- escape means the security is shitty.) to the "serial killer problem" (in which you specifically target serial killers under the pretense of them "not being rare").

A. it's not a pretense B. I bring up serial killers because they are one of the only exceptions, if not THE only exception, to my objection to the death penalty. I'm not saying "There are serial killers, so we have to kill all the murderers." as you are implying. Therefore, the "special cases" I bring up are entirely relevant to MY position on the topic.

This would communicate this to me:
1) You have no answer to our concerns, so thus "damn any innocent man who does manage to slip through" (of which we do know happens, and happens more than we'd like) [innocence project].
2) You'd rather get your dead man, whatever category, class, crime, etc,.
3) "Who" deserves death doesn't matter -- you'll cleverly increase or decrease the qualifiers for whom deserves state-sponsored death with rationalizations and emotional appeals, not objective measures (which brings it's own flamefest of trouble, I'm afraid).

Perhaps it communicates that because you haven't been reading what I have been saying on the topic. I'm pretty sure even Rhythm, who has been my longest running "opponent" on the topic could tell you that I have conveyed none of the above positions.

So no, whether you "want" to avoid executing innocent people or not, it doesn't fucking matter.

Uh, yeah it fucking does.

You're arguing for a system that fundamentally is structured with "no take backs" in mind. And to add salt to the wound, you're arguing for a system chaired by men in one of the most religious nations on this planet.

No, I am fucking not! Please, someone show me where I said we should have the death penalty in the United States right now. I'm begging you, because I keep being accused of these nonsense beliefs that I haven't even so much as hinted at.

Frankly, knowing the batshit in the air, I'm surprised that you wouldn't be back pedaling on this (if not for logic, for the consequences such advice, given the society you live in).

Why the hell would I backpedal, because you apparently misinterpreted everything I said or attributed things that Epi said to me, much like Rev did?

Shell, if these "men" under jurisdiction and watch of the state escape, it means this:
The prison is flawed and some process was shoddy enough to allow for that escape.

They don't only escape from prison, which has been my main point. The budget is not there to staff the prisons further. The laws that allow them to be going from here to there and wind up escaping are kept in place to maintain their rights both before and after conviction. You can't have "treat them like humans" and "put them in a steel box with no holes," buddy. Even still, NONE of my objections to the "make the prisons better" argument would make me say the death penalty is viable in this country right now.

And if you argue the "threat angle", why don't you bloody come out with it and just admit you want them on the firing line upon their first escape attempt?

I didn't say that, nor would I say that. I'm not some militant hatemonger, so you can stop that angle. I'm not going to be goaded into freaking out and saying something I don't mean so you can be satisfied that you told someone off for something that they don't believe. I mean that in the friendliest way.

Because that's what you're going to get to if you insist on blaming ridiculous failure of the prison (which, last I checked, exists solely to hold these people for a set period of time).

Blaming the ridiculous failure of the prison on what? I think that was an incomplete thought or I am reading it wrong.

It is more likely your "serial killer" will get clemency from a Governor Huckabee than escape by their own hand.

Yes, your point? I'm not arguing we have a perfect system. I'm not arguing we put ANYONE to death right now. I'm not arguing anything except that the death penalty is a viable sentence in a perfect scenario. That's it. Anything else you attribute to me is fodder for your own righteous indignation.

[Autumnlicious]

That's it. I'm tapping out too.

I'm tired of this mincing words, "I didn't say this specific thing", "I only advocated for this tiny thing in a discussion on the general implementation", et al.

You want to be evasive and double think it? Fine.

You want to build an entire penalty out of a rare special case and then freely advocate it for that, fine.

You want to posture theory but never want to implement it? Fine.

I noted that the system invariably let's these incredible injustices through.

Pity all you want to do is "want" to not want to execute innocents.

Never mind that it is inevitable (anyone take systems analysis? what about some common sense summed as "shit gets through"...)

No more. You win.

DP it is then. There, I even changed my vote. Happy? Good.

I'm just sick of non-axiomatic thinking and bullshit ignorance of the system as it develops over time. Because humans can clearly and intelligently implement what they've failed to do terribly well since the first shaman pointed at the local hag and shouted "witch!".

[Shell B]

That's it. I'm tapping out too.

Why?

I'm tired of this mincing words, "I didn't say this specific thing", "I only advocated for this tiny thing in a discussion on the general implementation", et al.

What the fuck? Mincing words? No, I am simply asking that you do not treat me as if I advocated something I did not advocate. I don't give a flying fuck if the conversation is about "general implementation." I added exceptions to my agreement. Tough titty. I don't have to all the way agree or disagree to please you.

You want to be evasive and double think it? Fine.

Oh, please. You want to intentionally misquote my beliefs and the CLEAR statements I have made. Fine. Wah.

You want to build an entire penalty out of a rare special case and then freely advocate it for that, fine.

Wow. You made that one up too, huh?

You want to posture theory but never want to implement it? Fine.

Who said that? I don't want to implement it right now and I doubt it will be something I could agree to in my life time. Therefore, I am not going to say, "Um, because I do not 100% disagree, I think we have to set plans in motion to get this death penalty thing up and running."

I noted that the system invariably let's these incredible injustices through.

Yeah, duly noted. I never argued that. I fucking dare you to find one place where I said that. It would be nice if we were actually disagreeing about actual arguments I made.

Pity all you want to do is "want" to not want to execute innocents.

I don't "want" to execute anybody. You "want" for me to have said the things that you are bitching about so you would have a leg to stand on. To be honest, your putting words in my mouth and refusing to acknowledge what I am actually saying is starting to piss me off. I like you, very much, in fact, for an internet entity. I simply cannot fathom why you want to make something up to be pissed about. Sorry I'm not dealing in absolutes like the morality brigade here. Fuck, I only even came into this thread again to talk about the "it" thing and you jumped all over me about shit OTHER people have been saying in this thread.

Never mind that it is inevitable (anyone take systems analysis? what about some common sense summed as "shit gets through"...)

Fucking irrelevant. I could say, "I would not smack my child unless he was going into shock and needed to snap out of it." Would you then get all menstrual about my exception? The likelihood of the scenario being just right for such an action has no bearing on me making an exception for it.

No more. You win.

I'm not trying to "win" anything, Syn. Not in the slightest. I am trying to make a point. Maybe I am not communicating it right. Maybe it is impossible for anyone to be anything but absolute and, quite frankly, insulting, when it comes to this topic and I simply failed to realize it. I have no idea. Nonetheless, it is not my intention to change anyone's mind or "win" anything. I am trying to understand and be understood. It's that simple.

I'm just sick of non-axiomatic thinking and bullshit ignorance of the system as it develops over time. Because humans can clearly and intelligently implement what they've failed to do terribly well since the first shaman pointed at the local hag and shouted "witch!".

How is the issue axiomatic in any way? Executions are demonstrably different (read:fewer) than they were back then. You simply never know what will happen, so I am not throwing my hands up in the air and saying, "It will never be like that, so no, I'm not even going to consider it" and that somehow pisses you off.

[reverendjeremiah]

Justifying the death penalty because they are inhuman trash, using dehumanizing language to make putting them to death palatable?

Wanting to get at the "serial killers" and damn the innocent men we may sentence to death, because our justice system is so perfect or we artificially limit "who" gets the death penalty (disregarding the invariable circumstance when someone is charged and railroaded anyways)?

Wanting to keep a death penalty under cause of "they might escape"?

If face palming was an option here, there would be no more faces to be palmed.

I dont want to be a bitch..but your post kind of conflicts with your signature

[Autumnlicious]

I dont want to be a bitch..but your post kind of conflicts with your signature

It's called sarcasm. I noted earlier Epi had a habit of dehumanizing things, so I snapped up one that particularly irked me.

Perhaps you failed to notice the by line underneath my username ("Lost in the Collective")? Howbout the "Religious views"?

PM me if you have any further questions.

I'd prefer that my points be considered a non-entity, as I will no longer be maintaining them in good faith.

[reverendjeremiah]

I dont want to be a bitch..but your post kind of conflicts with your signature

It's called sarcasm. I noted earlier Epi had a habit of dehumanizing things, so I snapped up one that particularly irked me.

Perhaps you failed to notice the by line underneath my username ("Lost in the Collective")? Howbout the "Religious views"?

PM me if you have any further questions.

I'd prefer that my points be considered a non-entity, as I will no longer be maintaining them in good faith.

AHHH!!! I see now. I see that it is a quote from Epi.

there have been so many letters on the screen, it is easy for people to miss little things like that.

not to mention my doctor keeps telling me i need bifocals and I do not want them..LOL

Because all people are its.

It is correct.

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.

I appreciate that it doesnt consider what I wrote to be propaganda. sometimes I just make examples. Perhaps I should be a bit more detailed and point out that I am merely running the concept through some tests so it would not get confussed or misunderstand me.

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

I agree with what it is saying. The word "it" doesnt necessarily follow that it is a serial killer, or not human.

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?

My apologies. I did not mean for it to go that far with my post. Like i said before, sometimes I just follow through on the concepts. In no way did I mean for it to think i was suggesting it would follow through in these situations. I merely suggested that these COULD happen. And no, I do not neccessarily think that calling people it means they will become genocidal maniacs. I merely suggest that such a way of identifying people is rude, and COULD be used as a stepping stone for greater persecutions and such. In no way would I suggest that it would become a promoter of genocide, and if it thought that way of my posts, then I apologize. I should have been more descriptive.

*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.

It does have a point. I agree. Every human is an "it", so it really doesnt even follow that "it" is an insult either, as we have both come to agree.

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.

..and now I see that it has a point. These are the reasons why I have conversations, to open my mind. I now see the concept of "it" a bit differently now. "It" isnt really meant to be an insult. All people are "its". I now agree with you. I still dont agree with execution, but I no longer think that calling them things "it" is not insulting.

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.

As it shouldnt. I agree with it. I just wanted to make sure that it was consistent on this, and not changing it's mind on an individual to individual basis.

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

No, I dont think it did. It did defend Epi. I personally have never used "it" to describe a person before either. Now that I know that all people are "it's" I feel a bit more open about using "it" to refer to people.

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.

I am glad that it was very clear about that. I dont want to be accused of slippery slopes, and it does make a good point. I promise it that I will be a bit less selective in the future.

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.

That was me, and I now know better and I no longer do such a thing. I even made a public apology to it and all things involved in that. I promise no longer to call Libertarians "Nazi's".

[Epimethean]

It is making sense now.