|
On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life.
Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating?
You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them.
|
How dare them big bad Chinese government executed our very nice freedom loving drug pusher guy!! We'll start opium war no.3 on them.
|
On January 01 2010 14:39 ProbeSaturation wrote:
lol chinese people...all you can do is lol
Muahaha
You, sir, have just been counter trolled.
|
On January 01 2010 14:29 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:23 n.DieJokes wrote:On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys Hmm where to start, heroine prevention is important because heroin is an addictive and dangerous drug and any reduction of it's availability is a step in the right direction; everyone agrees with that. Thats not the issue you here even if you'd like it to be because obviously you'd be right. The dealer doesn't force the user to use drugs, he enables their drug use; he doesn't actively "destory 28,000 lives" and to attribute that solely to the dealer is absurd fallacy. My criteria is not "harming human life", that's your criteria. My criteria is human life has invaluable intrinsic worth and can't be taken away as retribution for X amount of damage done. Moreover, jail is not beneficial, when you put someone away you aren't helping them; its punishment for his wrong. But what a drug trafficker does is not murder, he doesn't deserve a death penalty. Other problems with your post; 1) 4,000 grams of heroine is 4kilos, we can all do the conversion; your trying to exaggerate its severity by misrepresenting the units and it's a stupid tactic. 2) I don't see any "racist ignorant hate" but if you want to victimize yourself that's cool I guess I think the difference in opinion here is that the execution was not in retribution. Rather it was a preventative to further drug trafficking. They weren't "punishing" the drug dealer. They were making an example of him. It might not help the drug dealer, but perhaps it would help the billion+ people in China who might have been affected by access to heroin or entertained the notion of taking up the drug trade. A similar analogy in my mind would be Martha Stewart being sent to jail for insider trading. OK she was financially unethical. She cheated the system. Does this warrant jail time? She was fined MUCH more than she profited by the illegal trade. I think it's a somewhat odd notion to say that the "punishment" for breaking a law should be the direct equivalent of damage or losses done by the crime itself. That may be poetic justice but it doesn't make for a very sound judicial system.
Yea, I was trying to make a point concisely but I botched it. I can tell you with absolute certainty that drug trafficking shouldn't be punished with death and that intotherainx post is absurd but I've never tried to lay out the philosophy behind it and what I wrote up there wasn't very good. Sometimes I like to jump into these threads just to see where I'm at and about halfway through that post I decided I don't have anything more than I vague and unfinished idea of why I believe what I do and shouldn't be posting. Live and learn I guess, thank you though
|
On January 01 2010 14:42 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life. Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating? You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them.
No single person would think it fair if a government executed them for having 4 kilos of Heroin.
If they did I'd have to think them a bit loopy.
It's just easier to stomach because a mostly faceless government is doing it.
Faceless mob mentality, nothing justifiable about it, the argument is in a circle.
|
On January 01 2010 14:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:42 Draconizard wrote:On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life. Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating? You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them. No single person would think it fair if a government executed them for having 4 kilos of Heroin. If they did I'd have to think them a bit loopy. It's just easier to stomach because a mostly faceless government is doing it. Faceless mob mentality, nothing justifiable about it, the argument is in a circle.
Naturally, there are few perpetrators fond of their punishments. That's hardly a good measurement tool for "fair" (what does that even mean?) sentences.
|
It's not a matter of perpetration so much as actual public opinion of the penalty. It's easy to shoo off as fair when you don't actually think about the situation.
|
|
|
On January 01 2010 14:50 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:29 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 01 2010 14:23 n.DieJokes wrote:On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys Hmm where to start, heroine prevention is important because heroin is an addictive and dangerous drug and any reduction of it's availability is a step in the right direction; everyone agrees with that. Thats not the issue you here even if you'd like it to be because obviously you'd be right. The dealer doesn't force the user to use drugs, he enables their drug use; he doesn't actively "destory 28,000 lives" and to attribute that solely to the dealer is absurd fallacy. My criteria is not "harming human life", that's your criteria. My criteria is human life has invaluable intrinsic worth and can't be taken away as retribution for X amount of damage done. Moreover, jail is not beneficial, when you put someone away you aren't helping them; its punishment for his wrong. But what a drug trafficker does is not murder, he doesn't deserve a death penalty. Other problems with your post; 1) 4,000 grams of heroine is 4kilos, we can all do the conversion; your trying to exaggerate its severity by misrepresenting the units and it's a stupid tactic. 2) I don't see any "racist ignorant hate" but if you want to victimize yourself that's cool I guess I think the difference in opinion here is that the execution was not in retribution. Rather it was a preventative to further drug trafficking. They weren't "punishing" the drug dealer. They were making an example of him. It might not help the drug dealer, but perhaps it would help the billion+ people in China who might have been affected by access to heroin or entertained the notion of taking up the drug trade. A similar analogy in my mind would be Martha Stewart being sent to jail for insider trading. OK she was financially unethical. She cheated the system. Does this warrant jail time? She was fined MUCH more than she profited by the illegal trade. I think it's a somewhat odd notion to say that the "punishment" for breaking a law should be the direct equivalent of damage or losses done by the crime itself. That may be poetic justice but it doesn't make for a very sound judicial system. Yea, I was trying to make a point concisely but I botched it. I can tell you with absolute certainty that drug trafficking shouldn't be punished with death and that intotherainx post is absurd but I've never tried to lay out the philosophy behind it and what I wrote up there wasn't very good. Sometimes I like to jump into these threads just to see where I'm at and about halfway through that post I decided I don't have anything more than I vague and unfinished idea of why I believe what I do and shouldn't be posting. Live and learn I guess, thank you though
It's all good Jokes. That's pretty much exactly what debates/forums are for 
|
|
|
That was some great insight and analysis on China StorkHwaiting !
|
On January 01 2010 14:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:42 Draconizard wrote:On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life. Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating? You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them. No single person would think it fair if a government executed them for having 4 kilos of Heroin. If they did I'd have to think them a bit loopy. It's just easier to stomach because a mostly faceless government is doing it. Faceless mob mentality, nothing justifiable about it, the argument is in a circle.
uhh it's perfect fair do you even know what the opium wars were? and that there are HUGE SIGNS (in english) in every chinese airport saying "DRUG SMUGGLING IS PUNISHABLE BY DEAD PENALTY
|
(^ Never saw one of those signs when I was in China.)
The golden rule is the basis for all of normative morality.
It's easy to say "death penalty for murderers!" if you have good confidence that you will never be tried for murder. (That would be overconfidence, since innocents get tried and even convicted all the time.) You cannot apply the golden rule here because you can't identify with a murderer. So you have to generalize it. If you are tried for anything, a small crime or a big one, would you want the punishment to match the crime that you are committing? Yes. Would you take comfort in the knowledge that your punishment won't be cruel or inhuman? Yes.
So, article 5 is established.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
This is something everyone can agree to.
As for the nature of governments: a government does not represent the people. Not even a democratic government even remotely accurately represents the collective sentiments of the people. And you shouldn't want that either. It's not a government's job to do so. If the majority of the population wants to have all Muslims executed, then the government should still not oblige, since it would be violating the right to life of the Muslims. A government's job is to protect the rights and liberties of the individuals entrusted to it.
It is the responsibility of the Chinese lawmakers to make just law, making sure that no punishment is cruel or inhuman. Death penalty for drug trafficking is cruel and inhuman. Regardless of whether a majority of the population wants the drug runner dead or no.
By the way, I would be in favour of changing the law in response to international pressure, but this man still needs to be tried and sentenced under the old law, so the drug runner is (should be) lost to us whatever the result of the debate.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
lol thats hilarious
"diu lai no mo hai" -> well its kind of wrong romanization of the phrase but it means fuck your mothers vagina lol
|
Phrujbaz, you're starting to sound like a broken record here. We understood you the first time. I just don't think anyone agreed with you. Reiterating yourself isn't very persuasive.
P.S. He wasn't a citizen of China. You seem to forget this fact. And citizens forfeit their rights when they break the law. Hence the point of making a distinction between law-abiding and criminal. He had a trial. They gave him his rights until the trial proved him guilty.
|
|
|
On January 01 2010 22:32 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Phrujbaz, you're starting to sound like a broken record here. We understood you the first time. I just don't think anyone agreed with you. Reiterating yourself isn't very persuasive.
That's not fair. It may contain many of the same empty assertions, but now that his 'collective morality' has fallen apart, he's run to just plain normative morality.
|
On January 01 2010 22:34 Spinfusor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 22:32 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Phrujbaz, you're starting to sound like a broken record here. We understood you the first time. I just don't think anyone agreed with you. Reiterating yourself isn't very persuasive. That's not fair. It may contain many of the same assertions, but now that his 'collective morality' has fallen apart, he's run to just plain normative morality.
Ah gotcha. Sorry then. I retract my point. Phrujbaz has moved the goal posts so to speak.
|
Am I just becoming a joke here? LOL
I'm serial guys. Super duper serial!
|
The fact that some country didn't abolished death penalty just blows my mind.
Middle Age morons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
