Your Stance on death penalty?

[Cephus]

I am against it. I don't think Jesus would advocate for it.

Yeah, the mythical Jesus is kind of biased on that account, don't you think?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am against it. I don't think Jesus would advocate for it.

Yeah, the mythical Jesus is kind of biased on that account, don't you think?

The way the Gospels describe Jesus, he didn't say anything to support people killing other people, but he sure did get excited about the idea of suffering as a divine punishment: he talks in glowing terms about tying metaphorical millstones to people who lead little children from him and about throwing non-believers into a (literal or metaphorical) fire like chaff.

 

[viole]

I am against it. I don't think Jesus would advocate for it.

I agree.

I actually think that supporting the death penalty is an untenable proposition for a Christian.

I'm iffy about it only for the possibility that someone who is actually innocent is convicted and executed. If the person is guilty of first-degree or felony murder, and there is no doubt about their guilt, I have no objection to the death penalty. Is it a deterrent? Of course not; it's not supposed to be. That's a bogus argument. No one thinks they're going to get caught, so why would they stop and think "ooh, I might get caught and be executed, so I won't rob and kill anyone today". It's punishment. You kill, you die. Simple.

You kill, you die.

Is that a general rule, still? You rape, you get raped. You torture, you get tortured. Etc. How very levitical.

Really?

By the way. If it is punishement, why do we call them Correctional facilities instead of Punishement facilities?

And why do we in Europe (with the exception of Belorus dictatorship) seem to do just fine without it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

You kill, you die.

Is that a general rule, still? You rape, you get raped. You torture, you get tortured. Etc.

Really?

Wow, that's a strawman if ever I saw one. Where's the facepalm smilie when you need it? Oh wait, this is even better...

If you take someone's life deliberately or through the commission of another crime, you deserve to forfeit yours.

By the way. If it is punishement, why do we call it Institute of Corrections instead of Institute of Punishements?

Ciao

- viole

And how many inmates are in these "Institutes of Corrections" serving life sentences with no chance of parole? Where's the correction there? Hmm?

 

[xkatz]

I am for the death penalty, but the way it is used in countries like the USA or Saudi Arabia is too liberal IMHO. The death penalty should be the VERY LAST option taken, and should be used when one is guilty far beyond reasonable doubt, and should be only used for acts of terrorism, mass murder, child rape.

 

[viole]

Wow, that's a strawman if ever I saw one. Where's the facepalm smilie when you need it?

Why is that a strawman? If you say: you kill, you die, you seem to justify transmission of the crime to the perp. Singling out murder is not logically justified. I could say if you torture, you get tortured and call yours a strawman? Why not?

If you take someone's life deliberately or through the commission of another crime, you deserve to forfeit yours.

Again, I could say if you deliberately torture someone you deserve to be tortured. My argument is as "strong" as yours.

Why is my argument weak and yours strong? Is killing an inmate morally preferrable than torturing her? Why?

And how many inmates are in these "Institutes of Corrections" serving life sentences with no chance of parole? Where's the correction there? Hmm?

Well, then I suggest you change those institutes name, for sake of logical consistency and hypocrisy reduction.

BTW. I also strongly oppose irreversible life sentences. With the possible exception of 90 years old murderers.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

Why is that a strawman? If you say: you kill, you die, you seem to justify transmission of the crime to the perp. Singling out murder is not logically justified. I could say if you torture, you get tortured and call yours a strawman? Why not?



Again, I could say if you deliberately torture someone you deserve to be tortured. My argument is as "strong" as yours.

Why is my argument weak and yours strong? Is killing an inmate morally preferrable than torturing her? Why?



Well, then I suggest you change name, for sake of logical consistency and hypocrisy reduction.

BTW. I also strongly oppose life sentences. With the possible exception of 90 years old killing someone.

Ciao

- viole

Your argument is weak. It's a strawman because you are taking an argument I made on a subject and extending it to a completely different subject. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rape and torture as retribution and punishment are not the issue here. We are talking about the penalty for murder. A life for a life. I said "you kill, you die". I did not say "you rape, you get raped" or "you torture, you get tortured". See the difference? No? Well, then I can't help.

 

[viole]

Your argument is weak. It's a strawman because you are taking an argument I made on a subject and extending it to a completely different subject. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rape and torture as retribution and punishment are not the issue here. We are talking about the penalty for murder. A life for a life. I said "you kill, you die". I did not say "you rape, you get raped" or "you torture, you get tortured". See the difference? No? Well, then I can't help.

Well, then you do not understand what a strawman is, I am afraid.

I m not attacking the argument, I am attacking the justification thereof. You are perfectly free to say that murderers should be executed, but if you use the justification "causing death costs your life" then you have to explain why is that valid only for murder.

Let's see if I can make a simple unrelated example.

Suppose you tell me that you can anticipate the future and you use that faculty to start a business in divinating other people future. Suppose I ask you why you do not use that faculty to win the lottery every week.

I am changing the topic from other people future to the lottery. Would that be a strawman too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[YmirGF]

I've never been much of a fan of killing other human animals. Sue me.

Life imprisonment, in my view, is much worse than the death penalty.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, then you do not understand what a strawman is, I am afraid.

I m not attacking the argument, I am attacking the justification thereof. You are perfectly free to say that murderers should be executed, but if you use the justification "causing death costs your life" then you have to explain why is that valid only for murder.

Let's see if I can make a simple unrelated example.

Suppose you tell me that you can anticipate the future and you use that faculty to start a business in divinating other people future. Suppose I ask you why you do not use that faculty to win the lottery every week.

I am changing the topic from other people future to the lottery. Would that be a strawman too?

Ciao

- viole

I understand perfectly well what a strawman is. You're still strawmanning because you're taking my original statement and misrepresenting it. Moreover, you're extending it into conjecture.

So here's the thing, no more, no less:

1. You agree that if you deliberately kill someone you should be executed.
2. You do not agree that if you deliberately kill someone you should be executed.

Pick one.

 

[viole]

I understand perfectly well what a strawman is. You're still strawmanning because you're taking my original statement and misrepresenting it. Moreover, you're extending it into conjecture.

So here's the thing, no more, no less:

1. You agree that if you deliberately kill someone you should be executed.
2. You do not agree that if you deliberately kill someone you should be executed.

Pick one.

I do not agree that if you deliberately kill someone you should be executed.

Your turn.

You agree that the perp should be executed. What is your logical motivation that support this?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

You agree that the perp should be executed. What is your logical motivation that support this?

I think I've answered this a few times... if you deliberately take someone's life, your is forfeit. Whether it's done by the state because members of society have willed that, or by the old ways of weregild and blood payment. I don't need to support it with logic, I support it with my morality, code of conduct and code of ethics.

 

[viole]

I think I've answered this a few times... if you deliberately take someone's life, your is forfeit. Whether it's done by the state because members of society have willed that, or by the old ways of weregild and blood payment. I don't need to support it with logic, I support it with my morality, code of conduct and code of ethics.

Morality is relative. In Europe death penalty Has the same moral valence of chopping off hands when you steal. Maybe both forms of punishement are right, who can say? I simply do not see why we should privilege one form of retribution against the other, apart from invoking some nebulous form of civilization or progressive morality.

So, we are back on square one. You insist that taking lives requirs taking a life. But why is that? Why is that valid only for "taking lives" and not for "taking X", with X different from "lives"?

Is that because it says so in the Bible?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

Morality is relative. In Europe death penalty is considered equivalent to chopping off hands when you steal. Maybe both forms of punishement are right, who can say? I simply do not see why we should privilege one form of retribution against the other, apart from invoking some nebulous form of civilization or progressive morality.

So, we are back on square one. You insist that taking lives requirs taking a life. But why is that? Why is that valid only for "taking lives" and not for "taking X", with X different from "lives"?

Is that because it says so in the Bible?

Ciao

- viole

Uh, I'm not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, so please do not throw the Bible at me. And I do not live in Europe. And I already said that I'm not going to go off in other directions about other crimes and their relevant punishments. Make another thread for that. And I already said I believe that a life requires a life because it's my code of ethics and morality. What part of "because it's my code of ethics and morality" are you not getting?

 

[viole]

Uh, I'm not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, so please do not throw the Bible at me. And I do not live in Europe. And I already said that I'm not going to go off in other directions about other crimes and their relevant punishments. Make another thread for that. And I already said I believe that a life requires a life because it's my code of ethics and morality. What part of "because it's my code of ethics and morality" are you not getting?

Well, it is not my moral code. Now what? Either we kill the thread by invoking our moral codes, and that's it, or we try to reason about that.

If you opt for the former, then there is not really a lot I can add. I will simply chalk it out as counter evidence that morality is subject to rational reasoning. At least for some.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, it is not my moral code. Now what? Either we kill the thread by invoking our moral codes, and that's it, or we try to reason about that.

If you opt for the former, then there is not really a lot I can add. I will simply chalk it out as counter evidence that morality is subject to rational reasoning. At least for some.

Ciao

- viole

Hey, you're the one who kept challenging me.

 

[viole]

Hey, you're the one who kept challenging me.

So, you do agree that moral codes are not subject to rational inquiry.

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

P.S. Is that you on that picture?

 

[Cephus]

The way the Gospels describe Jesus, he didn't say anything to support people killing other people, but he sure did get excited about the idea of suffering as a divine punishment: he talks in glowing terms about tying metaphorical millstones to people who lead little children from him and about throwing non-believers into a (literal or metaphorical) fire like chaff.

Plus the fact, he got put to death, you can't expect him to be very favorable of capital punishment now, can you?

 

[Cephus]

So, you do agree that moral codes are not subject to rational inquiry.

I would never say that, everything is subject to rational inquiry.

 

[freethinker44]

I agree.

I actually think that supporting the death penalty is an untenable proposition for a Christian.

Since when? The Bible is full of death and murder not only in God's name but directed and aided by God sometimes. Remember that one where God stopped the Sun so the "righteous" murderers could have extra time to rape and enslave all the women and children after they murdered the men and boys?

Death is the penalty for even the smallest indiscretions in the bible.
Work on the sabbath? Death, right from the mouth of God.
Exodus 31:15 "whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death"

Commit adultery? Death!
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."

I think for breaking most of the commandments, the penalty is death.

I mean, come on, "the death penalty is an untenable proposition for a Christian"? Really? The Bible says a woman who doesn't scream loud enough while she is being raped should be stoned to death.