Originally posted by Robtard
You bring up an interesting point with 'government & revenge.' What would you say to a system where the murdered (raped in this case) victims family gets to decide if they want him dead; if so they're the ones that have to pull the trigger, inject the needle, flip the switch, what have you?
I wouldn't agree with it. The system is still advocating it, which I don't agree with, I don't think that personal feelings or vendettas should come into any sort of criminal law.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You said some odd things. Being a parent might change ones outlook, what does it matter to rational debate though?
I don't think our comments were all that different. I showed the contrast between the two different perspectives and I used words to directly imply that a parent would want something irrationally BECAUSE they are a parent.
This guy was more to the point I was making.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Which is why sensible people make the decision.Well, should do.
The parent wants justice(punishment) because they are the parent and the victim prolly wants his life. That was my point.
I have a question just for you and please answer honestly:
What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a question just for you and please answer honestly:What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?
Beat the absolute shit out of them, possibly kill them. Doesn't really have anything to do with the death penalty, though.
Originally posted by dadudemonI can't answer that "honestly" I don't have a child, I have never been in a similar situation, I have no experience to go by in answering it.
I don't think our comments were all that different. I showed the contrast between the two different perspectives and I used words to directly imply that a parent would want something irrationally BECAUSE they are a parent.This guy was more to the point I was making.
The parent wants justice(punishment) because they are the parent and the victim prolly wants his life. That was my point.
I have a question just for you and please answer honestly:
What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?
And again, my point is that though you are right that parents will feel irrationally and emotional about it, it doesn't matter in this objective debate.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Beat the absolute shit out of them, possibly kill them. Doesn't really have anything to do with the death penalty, though.
I appreciate your honesty. Quite literally, it is your job as a parent to protect your children. (I am using "your" as the ambiguous "you". I know you're not a parent.) Since I would be fairly pissed myself, I am sure I would act irrationally and beat the perverts ass while my wife called the police.
And to address your second statement...see below.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I can't answer that "honestly" I don't have a child, I have never been in a similar situation, I have no experience to go by in answering it.And again, my point is that though you are right that parents will feel irrationally and emotional about it, it doesn't matter in this objective debate.
Since we live in a Democratic Republic, obviously it matters even an "objective" debate. A sympathetic parent's vote counts too.
Creating laws that can appease everyone is VERY difficult. You have to come up with complex policies that will not completely satisfy everyone.
The offended parent demands justice. The criminal demands mercy. The moralist professes the justice to be immoral. The cynical taxpayer demands less money be spent and is, therefore, indirectly for the justice. The optimistic psychologist demands rehabilitation...pissing off the cynical taxpayer and offended parent.
Of course, there are parents who are pro-life and are ridiculously benevolent and forgiving like those Amish people were to that killer who broke into their school.
I fall under the cynical taxpayer and optimistic psychologist category. Kill the bastard because I don't want to foot the bill for his incarceration but rehab that criminal if they are found to be "rehabable". Those two ideals directly contradict each other, imo, so my stance is absurdly confused.
Edit-Bardock, I see your response to the "parent" question. One thing that makes humans so intelligent is our ablity to place ourselves into others positions and judge our actions based on our comprehension of that situation. You are more than intelligent enough run through a "sympathetic" scenario. However, I won't press the issue further as you don't want to answer the question because you do not feel you could answer properly because you are not a parent.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Don't know. Hasn't happened; won't happen. Doesn't really affect the argument on the death penalty either way.
See my response to that...as you probably will.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why is everyone answering the question "just for me". You guys are thiefing assholes.
😆 😆
1. That was funny.
2. You also spelled it "thiefing".
Originally posted by dadudemon
Since we live in a Democratic Republic, obviously it matters even an "objective" debate. A sympathetic parent's vote counts too.
No, it does not. It matters to what happens in that democratic society. It doesn't matter to the logical arguments.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Creating laws that can appease everyone is VERY difficult. You have to come up with complex policies that will not completely satisfy everyone.
True, somehow being responsible for the death of hundreds of people does not suit everyone.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The offended parent demands justice. The criminal demands mercy. The moralist professes the justice to be immoral. The cynical taxpayer demands less money be spent and is, therefore, indirectly for the justice. The optimistic psychologist demands rehabilitation...pissing off the cynical taxpayer and offended parent.Of course, there are parents who are pro-life and are ridiculously benevolent and forgiving like those Amish people were to that killer who broke into their school.
Ranting about trivial stuff.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I fall under the cynical taxpayer and optimistic psychologist category. Kill the bastard because I don't want to foot the bill for his incarceration but rehab that criminal if they are found to be "rehabable". Those two ideals directly contradict each other, imo, so my stance is absurdly confused.
Would make sense if executions weren't so darn expensive, eh?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit-Bardock, I see your response to the "parent" question. One thing that makes humans so intelligent is our ablity to place ourselves into others positions and judge our actions based on our comprehension of that situation. You are more than intelligent enough run through a "sympathetic" scenario. However, I won't press the issue further as you don't want to answer the question because you do not feel you could answer properly because you are not a parent.
Flattering but not true. I don't feel the ability to make an accurate statement about such a situation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it does not. It matters to what happens in that democratic society. It doesn't matter to the logical arguments.
If social arguments could be settled with simple logic, then you would have a point. When you have parents AND others who want things that irrational to others, you are going end up with...you get the point.
Also, your logic is not objective either. It is flawed because it is based on the construct of perceived universal morality. Person A's morality is not better than Person B's and vice versa. They are simply morals.
Unless God is real and their are fundamental morals, no one can claim morals can be used to objectively and logically used in a debate.
Originally posted by Bardock42
True, somehow being responsible for the death of hundreds of people does not suit everyone.
I agree.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ranting about trivial stuff.
Very much on topic. Death penalty with this molester is being discussed. I was demonstrating some of the different perspectives held by people when it comes to "justice".
Originally posted by Bardock42
Would make sense if executions weren't so darn expensive, eh?
Absolutely. But is it more expensive to go through 5 years of appeals in the court system than it is to keep that person incarcerated for 50+ years?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Flattering but not true. I don't feel the ability to make an accurate statement about such a situation.
.....t-that's what I said.
Originally posted by dadudemonPointless to argue with you, you don't reply to my statements, but wander in your own magical dream world.
If social arguments could be settled with simple logic, then you would have a point. When you have parents AND others who want things that irrational to others, you are going end up with...you get the point.Also, your logic is not objective either. It is flawed because it is based on the construct of perceived universal morality. Person A's morality is not better than Person B's and vice versa. They are simply morals.
Unless God is real and their are fundamental morals, no one can claim morals can be used to objectively and logically used in a debate.
I agree.
Very much on topic. Death penalty with this molester is being discussed. I was demonstrating some of the different perspectives held by people when it comes to "justice".
Absolutely. But is it more expensive to go through 5 years of appeals in the court system than it is to keep that person incarcerated for 50+ years?
.....t-that's what I said.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Pointless to argue with you, you don't reply to my statements, but wander in your own magical dream world.
You're in a "mood" today.
Edit- I read back over my post....man, I made a lot of mistakes. I missed some "are"s and added too many words at some parts... a server went down earlier so I was trying to hurry up and type that before another person e-mailed/called me with a complaint.