Cool, thanks for your opinion about an unrelated issue. How do you feel about the death penalty, I assume that you obviously oppose it.

9/16/2013 8:46:09 PM

Pro-choice and pro-death penalty here.

Women should have a right to choose what happens to their body, just as society has the right to chose to execute people as it sees fit. Don't like either? Move somewhere where neither are practiced.

9/16/2013 8:50:46 PM

society does not have the moral right to kill people, it has an immoral legal right to do so like middle eastern and south asian countries

9/16/2013 9:52:06 PM

Quote :

"Women should have a right to choose what happens to their body, just as society has the right to chose to execute people as it sees fit. Don't like either? Move somewhere where neither are practiced."

That's frightening.

9/16/2013 10:12:58 PM

Quote :

"however, it's infinitely more cruel to make someone sit in solitary for the rest of their life than letting them peace out and not deal with the consequences of their actions"

See, that right there is where my morality is at this point. I used to be pro-death penalty but I'm slowly turning, however this fact nags at me. Our prison system is torture. How can anyone oppose the death penalty on moral grounds but ignore this fact? Life in prison is worse than the death penalty.

Quote :

"Quote : "so we can kill peoplefetuses if it makes things more convenient?" hmmm...."

hmmm....you're right, fetuses aren't people.

9/16/2013 10:53:00 PM

Quote :

"like middle eastern and south asian countries"

you're just trolling now

9/16/2013 10:54:30 PM

^^ we need massive radical prison reform, but we shouldn't kill anyone. Most people fight the death penalty, very few prefer it.

9/17/2013 12:22:36 AM

Society doesn't have a moral right to do a lot of the things it does. The death penalty is probably one of the less egregious things on that list.

It's wrong, but in certain situations, it's very satisfying to society as a whole.

Like most horrible things a person can do though, we as a society are in denial about how wrong this is when weighed against the fact that we have executed innocent people.

9/17/2013 12:51:57 AM

It's immoral to force society to keep someone alive who's life is already forfeit.

Back to my Ft. Hood example, you have 2 possible outcomes; Nidal Malik Hasan lives the rest of his life in a little cell alone, or we kill him, the end result in both being that he dies.

In the first, he's basically Schrödinger's cat, confined in a closed system waiting for the laws of probability to kill him. Eventually he fails a saving throw against the odds of organ failure or disease and he dies.

In the second, we just take probability out of the equation.

Perpetual confinement and a death sentence are the same thing, you're permanently removing an individual from society, with zero chance of return. Only in one you're immorally depriving society of resources for no purpose other than to prolong the inevitable.

Why do you want to be cruel and immoral to society?

9/17/2013 7:14:13 AM

Then why do most prisoners prefer life sentences to the death penalty? The death penalty is not humane, it is barbaric.

9/17/2013 8:02:16 AM

Quote :

"^^ we need massive radical prison reform, but we shouldn't kill anyone. Most people fight the death penalty, very few prefer it."

If we have a magic wand and we're reforming prison to the point where it isn't torture, why not reform investigation and the justice system to the point where we can be certain we're not killing innocent people while we're at it?

Quote :

"Then why do most prisoners prefer life sentences to the death penalty? The death penalty is not humane, it is barbaric."

Because humans have an intrinsic fear of death, even unto their detriment. I don't think that makes execution barbaric in and of itself.

9/17/2013 8:59:43 AM

Quote :

"Because humans have an intrinsic fear of death, even unto their detriment. I don't think that makes execution barbaric in and of itself."

that's exactly why its more barbaric than life in prison

you're welcome to say that prisons are terrible, and I'll agree with you. We need radical prison reform immediately, but that doesn't make killing anyone okay.

9/17/2013 9:05:48 AM

It's barbaric and cruel to torture someone by confining them for the rest of their life without any chance of release.

It's morally right and humane to end their existence quickly and not inflict the upkeep of their sustenance on society.

Only uncivilized society tortures the condemned with an eternity of isolated confinement, and tortures themselves with the condemned's burden.

9/17/2013 9:14:53 AM

^^I think you missed the "even unto their detriment" clause of my sentence. I agree to an extent with the sentiment of the poster above that euthanizing someone instead of torturing them is morally preferable (completely in a vacuum, ignoring whether they deserve either).

9/17/2013 9:18:17 AM

^^ if they do not want to die, its certainly not moral to kill them. a persons right to self preservation is an inalienable moral right, regardless of if their desire results in a better or worse experience from an outside opinion.

there are countless other examples where killing someone could be argued to be more humane than letting them experience a life that in your opinion is terrible or unimaginable, but that does not make it moral or humane. there is nothing immoral about suicide, but murder is always immoral.

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 9:24:56 AM

Quote :

"That's frightening."

Why is it so frightening? At least I am consistent, unlike tons of hypocrites who support the death penalty in the name of 'justice', while condemning a woman for choosing to have an abortion and calling it murder.

Btw, pro-choice doesn't always mean pro-abortion. And just because I happen to support some instances of implementing the death penalty (mass murderers/rapists) doesn't mean I'm happy about the fact that innocent people are executed.



[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 9:56:37 AM

Quote :

"there is nothing immoral about suicide, but murder is always immoral. "

I'm highly suspicious of moral absolutes. I can think of moral implications of suicide (such as leaving people dependent on you to suffer) and moral benefits to murder (hitler comes to mind).

Quote :

"if they do not want to die, its certainly not moral to kill them"

I'm not sure this is always the case either. Preventing a person from guaranteed suffering even though they're deluded into thinking they have a chance of escaping it would be morally just in my book. Since nothing is guaranteed in life, however, I wouldn't use this as justification for the death penalty. Just sayin' moral absolutes don't usually work out.

9/17/2013 10:07:30 AM

killing hitler would not be moral unless it was an action of self defense (or defense of others)

Quote :

"Preventing a person from guaranteed suffering even though they're deluded into thinking they have a chance of escaping it would be morally just in my book."

I volunteer in Nicaragua every year, this time I guess I need to take my handgun and kill all the children in the orphanage?

9/17/2013 10:11:48 AM

Don't confuse acting morally with feeling morally superior to others. They are sooo not the same thing



[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 10:14:59 AM

Quote :

"I volunteer in Nicaragua every year, this time I guess I need to take my handgun and kill all the children in the orphanage?"

I'm not positing that the potential life of any given child in the orphanage will be complete suffering with no chance of escape, so no.

Quote :

"killing hitler would not be moral unless it was an action of self defense (or defense of others)"

Your use of the word "defense" is unclear. Is preventing actions that will result in the death and suffering of untold millions "defense"?

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 10:38:22 AM

Think of how many criminals have probably been aborted.

9/17/2013 11:12:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm not positing that the potential life of any given child in the orphanage will be complete suffering with no chance of escape, so no."

but you know that for certain for an incarcerated person, as if their life is now valueless and they can not experience anything. why are your values the benchmark? other people would think that an incarcerated person can still have a value life, and another person could think that the orphan child has no chance and will always suffer. no single other person should be allowed to decide that, it may only be decided be the person themselves.

Quote :

"Your use of the word "defense" is unclear. Is preventing actions that will result in the death and suffering of untold millions "defense"?"

that would be defense of others. if he had been captured already and was not a threat, then killing him would be murder. i don't think my post was unclear.


[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 11:16:44 AM

Quote :

"but you know that for certain for an incarcerated person, as if their life is now valueless ...etc"

^allow me to quote myself

Quote :

"Since nothing is guaranteed in life, however, I wouldn't use this as justification for the death penalty. Just sayin' moral absolutes don't usually work out."

-------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"that would be defense of others. if he had been captured already and was not a threat, then killing him would be murder. i don't think my post was unclear."

So then if capture is not possible without causing even more suffering, would it then be more moral to kill him than to capture him?

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 11:21:12 AM

^allow me to quote myself

Quote :

"killing hitler would not be moral unless it was an action of self defense (or defense of others)"

so since that is not your justification, you don't have any justification for the death penalty. so i assume you oppose it.

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 11:22:33 AM

It's like you're not reading a word I'm typing.

Quote :

"I used to be pro-death penalty but I'm slowly turning,"

But in regards to hitler, what you're telling me is that your morality doesn't concern itself with the consequences of human suffering but with simply not breaking the "don't murder unless in defense" rule.

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 11:32:11 AM

Bring back the chain-gang.

Slave labor ftw.

Does that make me pro life?

9/17/2013 11:32:55 AM

Quote :

"But in regards to hitler, what you're telling me is that your morality doesn't concern itself with the consequences of human suffering but with simply not breaking the "don't murder unless in defense" rule."

if you are saving others its defense of others

9/17/2013 11:39:10 AM

Quote :

"It's like you're not reading a word I'm typing. "

its like you're not reading what you type

see:

Quote :

"Our prison system is torture. How can anyone oppose the death penalty on moral grounds but ignore this fact? Life in prison is worse than the death penalty."

my point is, and has been, that it is only worse than life in prison in your opinion. and to the person who would be killed, your opinion doesn't mean shit, its only theirs that matters.

9/17/2013 11:42:12 AM

Give all prisoners the one-time option of state-assisted suicide.

9/17/2013 11:52:53 AM

Quote :

"my point is, and has been, that it is only worse than life in prison in your opinion. and to the person who would be killed, your opinion doesn't mean shit, its only theirs that matters."

Of course it's my opinion, and I disagree that it's always the case that everyone knows what's best for themselves.

9/17/2013 11:54:59 AM

^^in practice there would be too many chances for coercion

^ it doesn't matter if they know best, its their decision to make and only theirs.

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 11:55:24 AM

Quote :

"Why is it so frightening? At least I am consistent, unlike tons of hypocrites who support the death penalty in the name of 'justice', while condemning a woman for choosing to have an abortion and calling it murder. "

It's mainly frightening because you just justified the holocaust and almost every democide in history, with the "society has the right to chose to execute people as it sees fit" bit.

9/17/2013 11:58:34 AM

Quote :

"^ it doesn't matter if they know best, its their decision to make and only theirs."

That's only your opinion, now. And it doesn't seem consistent. You're saying it would be moral to murder hitler to prevent human suffering, but obviously hitler wouldn't be ok with that decision. Are you saying that it's only moral if his murder prevents other human suffering? Why the distinction?

9/17/2013 12:17:43 PM

are asking why self defense is moral or why a certain situation would be self defense?

self defense is moral because everyone has the inalienable right to self preservation

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 12:23:38 PM

Quote :

"It's mainly frightening because you just justified the holocaust and almost every democide in history, with the "society has the right to chose to execute people as it sees fit" bit."

That's not at all what I meant and the fact that you are trying equivocate the mass genocide of millions of INNOCENT individuals (as in, NOT CONVICTED BY A COURT OF LAW) with our current court system shows that you haven't thought very critically about what I said.

Convicting/executing a mass murderer or serial rapist =/= Nazi Holocaust

Then again, I'm not at all surprised you would make this equivocation. After all, to you, anyone who is brown automatically = low income.

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 12:43:38 PM

so what if it was written into law that same sex sexual acts are a capital offense, then from your construction of morality that killing would be moral. and if its written into law that being jewish is a capital offense, its moral by your construction. his comparison works because both of those things determine morality based on what the state decides is legal, its a legal defense and not a moral one.

9/17/2013 12:46:24 PM

I don't find anything morally wrong with same sex couples/acts, so that premise doesn't work. I also don't find anything morally wrong with being Jewish. Keep trying.


[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 12:51:18 PM

you don't, but you are basing your morality on legal decisions of the state. if the state decided it was illegal and tried and convicted them in court, your definition would make killing them moral.

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 12:56 PM. Reason : added emphasis]

9/17/2013 12:52:21 PM

I'm actually not. It's way less complicated than you make it out to be. Laws do not always reflect morality, and as I general rule, I'm against laws that try to impose morality on individuals anyway (prostitution and drugs should be legal and regulated). But you aren't going to convince me that keeping a mass murderer or serial rapist alive is the morally 'correct' thing to do.

Again, it's not like I am huge proponent of abortions and that we should kill every single criminal that we convict of murder. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I guess it's easier to live in a world where things are black/white and morality is absolute. I'm sure that feels just awesome to know that everybody else is wrong but you.



[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 12:56:31 PM

Quote :

"Laws do not always reflect morality, and as I general rule, I'm against laws that try to impose morality on individuals anyway"

seem to be basing your morality on the court :

Quote :

"as in, NOT CONVICTED BY A COURT OF LAW"

Quote :

"Convicting/executing a mass murderer or serial rapist =/= Nazi Holocaust"

9/17/2013 1:03:17 PM

Quote :

"You aren't going to convince me that keeping a mass murderer or serial rapist alive is the morally 'correct' thing to do. "

9/17/2013 1:06:57 PM

not everyone needs to be convinced, there will always be those who would rather stick their head in the sand and continue their barbaric and unenlightened life. so keep on keepin on i guess.

9/17/2013 1:11:05 PM

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION, THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG.

did I get that right?

9/17/2013 1:12:34 PM

uh, you are the one who just posted that your mind is made up and no discussion will ever change it. you're the one doing what you just posted.

9/17/2013 1:15:24 PM

Didn't say no discussion would ever change my opinion, but you certainly haven't convinced me. Wasn't that the point of your thread though? To smugly proclaim that people who support the death penalty (regardless of circumstances and in any instance) are barbarians and to try to make them feel bad about it?

Maybe you could try discussing the financial costs of the death penalty and sell me a cheaper alternative that would make everyone happy. It was on the ballot in CA to abolish it, but for some reason it didn't even come close to passing. I wonder why that is, given how liberal people claim the state is?

I mean shit, even the staunchest opponents of abortion manage to have exceptions to their ill-convinced rules (cases of rape, incest, safety of the mother). Why is it ALWAYS wrong no matter what to kill someone? Can't there be exceptions? Oh wait, you even said yourself that it's OK as long as it's in defense of others.




[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2013 1:23:20 PM

you didn't say i haven't convinced you, you said i wouldn't

head in the sand

9/17/2013 1:31:30 PM

Quote :

"are asking why self defense is moral or why a certain situation would be self defense? self defense is moral because everyone has the inalienable right to self preservation"

I'm talking about killing hitler to prevent human suffering. Earlier in the thread you said that was a form of defense. Is that the same as "self defense"? You don't need to convince me that self defense is moral.

What I need to understand is why you think it's ok to kill hitler to prevent suffering but not ok to mercy kill someone to prevent their suffering because "inalienable right to self preservation". Wouldn't hitler's inalienable right to self preservation (assuming for the sake of argument that that is a thing) outweigh our moral duty to kill him?

[Edited on September 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM. Reason : bold not needed]

9/17/2013 2:04:19 PM

if you mean killing hitler after he is captured or not a threat to anyone, no that would not be moral

9/17/2013 3:57:00 PM

I said this:

"So then if capture is not possible without causing even more suffering, would it then be more moral to kill him than to capture him?"

To which you responded:

"^allow me to quote myself
Quote :
"killing hitler would not be moral unless it was an action of self defense (or defense of others)"
"

So what's unclear is whether you consider it "defense" when capture is not an option and how you're drawing that distinction.

9/17/2013 4:13:38 PM

Quote :

"if you mean killing hitler after he is captured or not a threat to anyone, no that would not be moral"

Oh, and back on the topic of life in prison, is there any way to guarantee that anyone is not going to be a threat to anyone ever again (aside from killing them I mean)?

9/17/2013 4:17:44 PM