|
On January 02 2010 07:58 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 05:55 TwoToneTerran wrote:
So because something is popular opinion, that makes it right? Even when that popular opinion is demonstrably flawed?
You're not saying anything new. That was one of the very first arguments in the thread and it's cyclically unintuitive to restate. I guess I could just quote every response I have to that point all over again but I find it a bit tedious. As an issue of international affairs, morality is irrelevant. It doesn't really matter whether you agree or disagree with the law--as a matter of policy, you don't flagrantly ignore local laws when you go to a foreign country, plain and simple; the converse results in too many hairy implications. Obviously families are going to be unsettled by the result, but British government officials really have no place speaking out against what the Chinese have done. Whether the law is fair or just is an issue for the Chinese people to deal with. That you, who live thousands of miles away, think its unfair is an entirely different (and irrelevant) matter.
Yes, of course I'm irrelevant. This is a philosophical discussion and nothing more. Stop goading me, I don't like dealing with "YOU'RE USELESS SHUT UP" trolls.
|
|
|
If its punishable by death in fucking China then its the person's fault 110%.
It their fault that they're dead, there should be no argument with that. Sure the laws may be inhumane in your eyes, but in China its not. In a lot of Asian country's, its not. It's more like that you think it isn't right and they do, you have an opinion and they have theirs. If they run their country saying if you smuggle any drugs and it's punishable by death, that's their law, and if you fucking disobey it, well then its your fault and you pretty much just dug your own grave.
|
On January 02 2010 08:18 KennigitsABaller wrote:
If its punishable by death in fucking China then its the person's fault 110%.
It their fault that they're dead, there should be no argument with that. Sure the laws may be inhumane in your eyes, but in China its not. In a lot of Asian country's, its not. It's more like that you think it isn't right and they do, you have an opinion and they have theirs. If they run their country saying if you smuggle any drugs and it's punishable by death, that's their law, and if you fucking disobey it, well then its your fault and you pretty much just dug your own grave.
I don't see your logic please explain other than, "because china can it will"
|
On January 02 2010 07:58 TwoToneTerran wrote:
That was the very first argument I tackled in this thread and I'm very tired of repeating it. If you didn't read the entire thread -- I suggest you do. If you did read the entire thread and forgot, I suggest you take a look back. It's a pain to have to rehash the same thing over and over because people want to repeat that I'm just some Western Morality Normative supporter (whereas I'm completely not -- I am personally appalled and what passes for acceptable in western culture) when that's nothing but a strawman laced with pseudo-ad hominem (in so much as I take blanket accusation of western ideals as an insult to character).
Look... this has nothing to do with you, morality or the philosophical nature of death penalty. China is fast developing, but not yet at a stage when it can abolish its death sentence, moral/humane or not. It is simply the best option out there.
|
It has nothing to do with you, stop trying to argue with me. You should've read the thread and never said anything because it's pointless to posit your own philosophy in the thread. <---- sarcasm
Seriously it's a forum the entire purpose is the exchange of ideas, not telling people not to exchange their ideas.
|
On January 02 2010 08:26 iloahz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 07:58 TwoToneTerran wrote:
That was the very first argument I tackled in this thread and I'm very tired of repeating it. If you didn't read the entire thread -- I suggest you do. If you did read the entire thread and forgot, I suggest you take a look back. It's a pain to have to rehash the same thing over and over because people want to repeat that I'm just some Western Morality Normative supporter (whereas I'm completely not -- I am personally appalled and what passes for acceptable in western culture) when that's nothing but a strawman laced with pseudo-ad hominem (in so much as I take blanket accusation of western ideals as an insult to character). Look... this has nothing to do with you, morality or the philosophical nature of death penalty. China is fast developing, but not yet at a stage when it can abolish its death sentence, moral/humane or not. It is simply the best option out there.
Er you're implying here I guess that a highly developed country abolishes their death penalties? You do realize that the US does instate the death penalty...and quite regularly at that.
|
On January 02 2010 07:58 TwoToneTerran wrote:
That was the very first argument I tackled in this thread and I'm very tired of repeating it. If you didn't read the entire thread -- I suggest you do. If you did read the entire thread and forgot, I suggest you take a look back. It's a pain to have to rehash the same thing over and over because people want to repeat that I'm just some Western Morality Normative supporter (whereas I'm completely not -- I am personally appalled and what passes for acceptable in western culture) when that's nothing but a strawman laced with pseudo-ad hominem (in so much as I take blanket accusation of western ideals as an insult to character).
I have read 90% of the thread and have reread most of your posts, and I don't think i've made myself clear enough. The concept of morality as it is widely understood i consider logicaly faulty at best. It is merely a consensus of people of a certain time that have simmilar needs and wants and agree on the way, manner, and order in which they should or should not be fulfilled, thus it is a subjective matter, not objective. Which would mean that i do not see any grounds on which you or anyone else can criticize the way in which someone else behaves, or in this example runs their country.
I'll repeat the point of my previous post that you ignored:
"And I completely fail to see how you can demonstrate that someone's ethical codex or worldview is flawed if it doesn't contain logical inconsistencies."
In other words if you cannot somehow demonstrate that executing this man for this crime is something that is bad for China and it's people, i do not see how it could be called "wrong".
|
I've read the entire thread and do not assume I didn't. I realized that I do need to stop arguing with you, and you probably should read more literature on China.
|
And by bad for China and it's people, i mean "bad" by their own definition
|
On January 02 2010 02:38 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 02:09 EmeraldSparks wrote:
I vote that saying the phrases "dumb masses," "sheeple," or "why don't you think for yourself" be an immediately bannable offense as it indicates that in 100% of cases the posters is an arrogant prick. You keep your blinders on, ignorance is bliss. lol I'd highlight the obviousness of how the masses are complete sheep but there's no point in arguing with you. If you can't see how people are massively brainwashed by the media, you need to pick up a book and quick. Alternatively you can go back to iccup, shut down your brain and pretend this world is as pink and cute as the fantasy we're being fed with.
You may be right, and you may be wrong, but one thing there is no doubt about right now is that you are an arrogant asshole.
On January 02 2010 05:20 TwoToneTerran wrote:
So because China has the law that makes it okay?
What if China punished Jaywalking, or littering via death? Would every Jaywalker and Litterer honestly deserve that consequence just because China gave them "Fair warning," which honestly means crap in a country where most of the trafficking is done by those too young, sheltered, or uneducated to understand the letter of law.
Are you claiming that this guy was too young, sheltered, or uneducated to realize that trying to traffic four kilograms of heroin into China was a bad idea?
|
Well he claimed to be ill as hell, and given only a 30 minute trial that auto executes, he may have been.
I don't know the specifics because I wasn't there, though.
On January 02 2010 08:36 Myrkul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 07:58 TwoToneTerran wrote:
That was the very first argument I tackled in this thread and I'm very tired of repeating it. If you didn't read the entire thread -- I suggest you do. If you did read the entire thread and forgot, I suggest you take a look back. It's a pain to have to rehash the same thing over and over because people want to repeat that I'm just some Western Morality Normative supporter (whereas I'm completely not -- I am personally appalled and what passes for acceptable in western culture) when that's nothing but a strawman laced with pseudo-ad hominem (in so much as I take blanket accusation of western ideals as an insult to character). I have read 90% of the thread and have reread most of your posts, and I don't think i've made myself clear enough. The concept of morality as it is widely understood i consider logicaly faulty at best. It is merely a consensus of people of a certain time that have simmilar needs and wants and agree on the way, manner, and order in which they should or should not be fulfilled, thus it is a subjective matter, not objective. Which would mean that i do not see any grounds on which you or anyone else can criticize the way in which someone else behaves, or in this example runs their country. I'll repeat the point of my previous post that you ignored: "And I completely fail to see how you can demonstrate that someone's ethical codex or worldview is flawed if it doesn't contain logical inconsistencies." In other words if you cannot somehow demonstrate that executing this man for this crime is something that is bad for China and it's people, i do not see how it could be called "wrong".
The logical inconsistency that isn't a purely subjective moral value is, as it has always been, is a common theme throughout almost all cultures -- The Golden Rule. Consequences set up in light of what you'd expect to be done to yourself should you find yourself breaking the law.
I could be very wrong, but I don't think it's unfair to suppose that most people -- even the chinese who support the law, would think it harsh if they found themselves in this man's position. Their own life because of drugs? Drugs are a harmful thing, but the actual snuffing out of their life over it would seem harsh.
This is also why the death penalty, from a logical perspective, would never work because no crime is worth killing, as killing is the ultimate crime. Imprisonment is just stripping of freedom (of which some countries give more or less of) -- something the country fairly gives and can fairly take away.
There may be people who would say "If I was found taking drugs over the border, no matter my mental state or reason, I should be killed," and to those people I have no argument that isn't entirely based in morals or based around the death penalty paradox, but that's a very tough position to take and I don't believe, if actually putting thought into it, most people would say that, as most people don't think their own life is worth less than 4KGs of heroin.
I stated this exact argument earlier in the thread. It may have been in the 10% you missed, whatever, but there it is. The Golden Rule is not a moral imposing of "western" values (that I don't have, mind you), but a logical turnabout. It's a supposition. It's a basis for understanding, but by no means is it any one culture's moral/ethical codex or ideals.
You may say that logic plays no part in Chinese law, and that we have no right to say that it shouldn't, but there's nothing morally ambiguous about logic -- it just progresses society and should be used frequently.
|
On January 02 2010 08:35 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:26 iloahz wrote:On January 02 2010 07:58 TwoToneTerran wrote:
That was the very first argument I tackled in this thread and I'm very tired of repeating it. If you didn't read the entire thread -- I suggest you do. If you did read the entire thread and forgot, I suggest you take a look back. It's a pain to have to rehash the same thing over and over because people want to repeat that I'm just some Western Morality Normative supporter (whereas I'm completely not -- I am personally appalled and what passes for acceptable in western culture) when that's nothing but a strawman laced with pseudo-ad hominem (in so much as I take blanket accusation of western ideals as an insult to character). Look... this has nothing to do with you, morality or the philosophical nature of death penalty. China is fast developing, but not yet at a stage when it can abolish its death sentence, moral/humane or not. It is simply the best option out there. Er you're implying here I guess that a highly developed country abolishes their death penalties? You do realize that the US does instate the death penalty...and quite regularly at that.
That was actually a quote somewhere else, let's just say it's China's official answer when asked why China has not abolished death sentence in a conference following the incident. The sentence is not self-contradictory even if you take US into account though. The US of course reached that stage a long time ago; it just chose to not abolish the death sentence.
|
On January 02 2010 08:47 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well he claimed to be ill as hell, and given only a 30 minute trial that auto executes, he may have been.
I don't know the specifics because I wasn't there, though.
While his initial conviction may have been short, the case was appealed all the way to the Supreme People's Court so they certainly had time to investigate the claims. They declined to do so because previous evidence of a mental disorder was required to undertake a mental assessment, and since Shaikh had never been diagnosed as such, they did not do so.
It is a very sad story, though.
|
On January 02 2010 08:58 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:47 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well he claimed to be ill as hell, and given only a 30 minute trial that auto executes, he may have been.
I don't know the specifics because I wasn't there, though. While his initial conviction may have been short, the case was appealed all the way to the Supreme People's Court so they certainly had time to investigate the claims. They declined to do so because previous evidence of a mental disorder was required to undertake a mental assessment, and since Shaikh had never been diagnosed as such, they did not do so. It is a very sad story, though.
Grim indeed. Mental disorder has to start somewhere, and requiring a previous mental illness to be surface in prior life before considering it a factor is completely non-sensical. Shame, really.
|
On January 02 2010 09:03 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:58 EmeraldSparks wrote:On January 02 2010 08:47 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well he claimed to be ill as hell, and given only a 30 minute trial that auto executes, he may have been.
I don't know the specifics because I wasn't there, though. While his initial conviction may have been short, the case was appealed all the way to the Supreme People's Court so they certainly had time to investigate the claims. They declined to do so because previous evidence of a mental disorder was required to undertake a mental assessment, and since Shaikh had never been diagnosed as such, they did not do so. It is a very sad story, though. Grim indeed. Mental disorder has to start somewhere, and requiring a previous mental illness to be surface in prior life before considering it a factor is completely non-sensical. Shame, really.
I don't think it's completely nonsensical lol. Would be really convenient to rape someone and be like oh shit, that wasn't me! That was my other personality, Jake! It's kind of convenient to suddenly develop the crazy bug when you get caught with a backpack full of heroin lol.
On the USA, please people don't use that as an example of a developed nation. Yo, I love my country, but we got some screwy ass shit going on here because we were founded by puritans in funny black hats and knee-high socks. Shit takes a while to diarrhea out of the collective consciousness. That's why we have abortion doctors getting shot in parking lots and people trying to teach kiddies that the world is so complex only God up high in da sky could have made it.
|
FUCKING BRIT GOT WHAT HE DESERVED THOSE FAGS RAN OPIUM INTO OUR COUNTRY OVER A CENTURY AGO AND ARE STILL DOING IT TODAY FUCK THAT!!
|
The vast majority of drug trafficking is done by the chinese themselves, Loanshark. =\ This is only getting news because he was british, obviously, but your current problem isn't really dominated by the British drug trade.
|
On January 02 2010 08:04 leetchaos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 12:52 Spinfusor wrote:
Meh, the only thing in this case you might find interesting is that the trial length (30 mins). This is pretty big problem in China. It took 30 minutes to sentence someone to die. Wow, just wow.
Um duh Chinese people have plans for new years too you know
|
Surprised at the amount of bias in this thread. Looks like the majority of teamliquid aren't clear-headed enough to judge base on reason and would automatically join on either side of this issue based on their own opinions, emotions, or rasicm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
