EPTOn January 02 2010 09:41 BalliSLife wrote:
Um duh Chinese people have plans for new years too you know
Um duh Chinese people have plans for new years too you know
Except that it wasn't new years.
British national executed in China - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
Except that it wasn't new years. | ||
|
Myrkul
Croatia132 Posts
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. 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. I consider the "Golden rule" to be non-apliccable to situations like these, and to this whole discussion actually, since it talks about what you should/should not do before the crime is commited. If i remember correctly it's one of Confucius's maxims on how people in an ideal state should act, but Confucius himself had very different ideas about what should be done when crimes are already commited. And you are interpreting it in a very interesting way, basically saying that nobody wants to be dead, therefore he should not be killed, which I find to be a very peculiar argument considering the topic. Nobody wants to be imprisoned either. And in the end this "Golden rule" as you call it is as subjective as any other rule or value based on relative definitions of good or bad, and as such cannot be called objectively better than any other. I think your main problem with this "event" comes from the fact that you posted earlier, that you're terrifyed of death, and you consider it to be the worst type of punishment. That makes your position about this understandable, but still does not give you the right to tell some else (or a whole country) how they should define good or bad. And there is nothing illogical about having a law that the majority of the population agrees with and implementing it. If the Chinese do not agree with you from the very basics: sanctity of life, your view on human rights etc, there is nothing to argue about, since all your criticism comes from some basic ideas on how human beings should act, and they do not share those ideas. You're not arguing against their laws because they are illogical, you're arguing against them because you do not like them. Illogical would mean that they are inconsistent with China's(majority of the population) position on crime and punishment, which, from what i see, they are not. | ||
|
Myrkul
Croatia132 Posts
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. A case could also be made, and it often has, stating that the country gives you life since you would be unable to survive if it did not exist, so when it feels like you're actions represent a threat to it's well-being it fairly takes away what it fairly gave | ||
|
KennigitsABaller
Barbados45 Posts
On January 02 2010 09:41 BalliSLife wrote: Um duh Chinese people have plans for new years too you know It took 30 minutes because he really can't say I didn't have x amount of drugs on me, they found it on him. What else is there to do make the trail longer even though he knows his faith is death? | ||
|
reit
Canada209 Posts
On January 02 2010 08:39 EmeraldSparks wrote: 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. It's not arrogance, it's just being fed up. I've been through hundreds of discussions where I had to provide a backing to my claim that the vast majority has no clue how the reality around them really works. I'm just very tired of always repeating the same stuff, which is why I said "if you can't see that, pick up a book", meaning that information is easily availible and I shouldn't reward intellectual laziness by feeding people the information 24/7. Plus it gets really really tedious to spend your time trying to open sheep's eyes. I feel like I'm 60 already jesus, so disillusionned about society lol. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17851 Posts
A couple years ago (2-3, don't remember) Brtish were trialing Pole for a suspected rape or something like that. Despite the family and government of Poland asking for his transfer back into country so he could be trialed here British declined and sentenced him as they saw fit. How come they are all crying and bitching now, when someone else is doing the same to them? | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote: It's not arrogance, it's just being fed up. I've been through hundreds of discussions where I had to provide a backing to my claim that the vast majority has no clue how the reality around them really works. I'm just very tired of always repeating the same stuff, which is why I said "if you can't see that, pick up a book", meaning that information is easily availible and I shouldn't reward intellectual laziness by feeding people the information 24/7. Plus it gets really really tedious to spend your time trying to open sheep's eyes. I feel like I'm 60 already jesus, so disillusionned about society lol. Actually, you sound like you're 20 years old and just picked up Chomsky for the first time. When you get a little older, you realize you're just as dumb as the rest of humanity. All you've really done is read some geopolitics/sociopolitics rather than STAR or US Weekly. There's very little difference to be honest. One person cries about what Lindsey Lohan is doing. The other person cries about what the PRC is doing. In the end, it's all just QQ, pull on my bitch tits, whine about others. | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote: It's not arrogance, it's just being fed up. I've been through hundreds of discussions where I had to provide a backing to my claim that the vast majority has no clue how the reality around them really works. I'm just very tired of always repeating the same stuff, which is why I said "if you can't see that, pick up a book", meaning that information is easily availible and I shouldn't reward intellectual laziness by feeding people the information 24/7. Plus it gets really really tedious to spend your time trying to open sheep's eyes. I feel like I'm 60 already jesus, so disillusionned about society lol. Yeah, you've got to be the most arrogant and pretentious guy I've seen on TL thus far. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote: It's not arrogance, it's just being fed up. I've been through hundreds of discussions where I had to provide a backing to my claim that the vast majority has no clue how the reality around them really works. I'm just very tired of always repeating the same stuff, which is why I said "if you can't see that, pick up a book", meaning that information is easily availible and I shouldn't reward intellectual laziness by feeding people the information 24/7. Plus it gets really really tedious to spend your time trying to open sheep's eyes. I feel like I'm 60 already jesus, so disillusionned about society lol. If you think trying to argue a point will bring you unbearable pain (as you seem to cry about), then just don't fucking argue? Sucks because I actually agree with you on most points. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote: It's not arrogance, it's just being fed up. I've been through hundreds of discussions where I had to provide a backing to my claim that the vast majority has no clue how the reality around them really works. I'm just very tired of always repeating the same stuff, which is why I said "if you can't see that, pick up a book", meaning that information is easily availible and I shouldn't reward intellectual laziness by feeding people the information 24/7. Plus it gets really really tedious to spend your time trying to open sheep's eyes. I feel like I'm 60 already jesus, so disillusionned about society lol. Oh yeah kid, you're really smart and cool. You're so nonconformist compared to all of your friends. I bet you're the only one of them edgy and hip enough to wear eyeliner and take your macbook to starbucks and talk to the other edgy and hip people there about how cool you are and then all have a good cry followed by a circlejerk. I hate you. | ||
|
SkylineSC
United States564 Posts
| ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul wrote: I consider the "Golden rule" to be non-apliccable to situations like these, and to this whole discussion actually, since it talks about what you should/should not do before the crime is commited. If i remember correctly it's one of Confucius's maxims on how people in an ideal state should act, but Confucius himself had very different ideas about what should be done when crimes are already commited. And you are interpreting it in a very interesting way, basically saying that nobody wants to be dead, therefore he should not be killed, which I find to be a very peculiar argument considering the topic. Nobody wants to be imprisoned either. And in the end this "Golden rule" as you call it is as subjective as any other rule or value based on relative definitions of good or bad, and as such cannot be called objectively better than any other. I think your main problem with this "event" comes from the fact that you posted earlier, that you're terrifyed of death, and you consider it to be the worst type of punishment. That makes your position about this understandable, but still does not give you the right to tell some else (or a whole country) how they should define good or bad. And there is nothing illogical about having a law that the majority of the population agrees with and implementing it. If the Chinese do not agree with you from the very basics: sanctity of life, your view on human rights etc, there is nothing to argue about, since all your criticism comes from some basic ideas on how human beings should act, and they do not share those ideas. You're not arguing against their laws because they are illogical, you're arguing against them because you do not like them. Illogical would mean that they are inconsistent with China's(majority of the population) position on crime and punishment, which, from what i see, they are not. He considers the value of life to be infinite, even though it is impossible for him or anyone to live to such a standard in daily life. If you read back through the thread a bit, you'll find a series of posts between him and myself on this point. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On January 02 2010 12:37 Manit0u wrote: Short lesson about double morals: A couple years ago (2-3, don't remember) Brtish were trialing Pole for a suspected rape or something like that. Despite the family and government of Poland asking for his transfer back into country so he could be trialed here British declined and sentenced him as they saw fit. How come they are all crying and bitching now, when someone else is doing the same to them? Well if you just look around, it's not really just the British that are crying, lol. I think it's kind of narrow to think of a nation as such a single "thing", as if every Pole or Brit is essentially the same person as their countrymen and agree/whine accordingly. | ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
you should read this wiki article, two things. One is that a lot of countries will kill drug smugglers. Two, other countries do far stupider shit... Pakistan: Murder; sodomy[81]; gang rape; mutiny. (See Capital punishment in Pakistan) | ||
|
phlamez
United States96 Posts
There are very few people in this thread who make actual arguments, everyone else just seems to make assertions with some people being better at masking their assertions as "warrants" for other assertions. There are a shocking number of people who make appeals to morality as if they created morality themselves. Who are you to just assert what morality is or isn't, or whether it's even remotely relevant to begin with. Literally the only justification I've heard for why morality would frown upon this incident is that the basis of all morality "that isn't a purely subjective value" is the Golden Rule. Are you serious? In what way is that not subjective, and why in the world is that what morality is based upon? I guess to answer that you'd have to begin with a discussion of what morality is, or ought to be. In my opinion the most neutral answer to this question is that morality ought to be a guide to human interaction. This obviously begs the question of how humans ought to interact and in order to resolve this debate you would need to establish and appeal to metaethical standards to adjudicate between competing ethical systems. To clarify, if I wanted to say that the Golden Rule is bullshit I might say that treating others in the way we wish to be treated leads to bad utilitarian ends and justify utilitarianism over other ethical systems through a metaethical standard. This means that in order for you to claim that the Golden Rule is the premise for morality, you'd need to a) show that it is consistent with an ethical system and b) give metaethical justifications for why that ethical system is the best. At best, your claim is that this is simply what morality "is", but this is no more than an appeal to our intuitions about morality (which you were so quick to reject when those intuitions in China supported this decision) and ultimately begs the question of why we ought to act morally if morality is just arbitrarily defined as the Golden Rule. Alternatively, your claim could be that the Golden Rule is sweet because it is a common theme among cultures but this would just be conceding that morality doesn't have any particular content but rather is determined by general consensus. Either way, you are acting as if every moral philosopher after Kant thought he was a total baller and completely agreed with the categorical imperative. You are by no means the worse offender in this thread, in fact the only reason I am calling out this example is because it reflects one of the better thought out positions in this thread. (If you are one of those people who posts a one liner about death being inviolable I am talking about you) | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul wrote: I consider the "Golden rule" to be non-apliccable to situations like these, and to this whole discussion actually, since it talks about what you should/should not do before the crime is commited. If i remember correctly it's one of Confucius's maxims on how people in an ideal state should act, but Confucius himself had very different ideas about what should be done when crimes are already commited. And you are interpreting it in a very interesting way, basically saying that nobody wants to be dead, therefore he should not be killed, which I find to be a very peculiar argument considering the topic. Nobody wants to be imprisoned either. And in the end this "Golden rule" as you call it is as subjective as any other rule or value based on relative definitions of good or bad, and as such cannot be called objectively better than any other. I think your main problem with this "event" comes from the fact that you posted earlier, that you're terrifyed of death, and you consider it to be the worst type of punishment. That makes your position about this understandable, but still does not give you the right to tell some else (or a whole country) how they should define good or bad. And there is nothing illogical about having a law that the majority of the population agrees with and implementing it. If the Chinese do not agree with you from the very basics: sanctity of life, your view on human rights etc, there is nothing to argue about, since all your criticism comes from some basic ideas on how human beings should act, and they do not share those ideas. You're not arguing against their laws because they are illogical, you're arguing against them because you do not like them. Illogical would mean that they are inconsistent with China's(majority of the population) position on crime and punishment, which, from what i see, they are not. No, most people can reasonably posit that if they committed a nasty crime, that it'd be nothing but fair to imprison them. Killing is, in a general sense, in an entirely different league from everything else that IS a punishment (Parole, Community Service, Fines, and, the most popular one, Imprisonment). The Golden Rule, in the context that I'm using it, it's just logical extrapolation. If you don't want me to call it the Golden Rule then that's fine -- I'll just call it by something that sounds less morally posited. It's just a logical conclusion that applies a common rationality on punishment/consequences. Any punishment that you deign support of must also be applicable to yourself or anyone close to you and still have you agree with the consequences. Aside from that, Death Penalty Paradox. If you've read the thread then you know what I'm talking about. | ||
|
Phrujbaz
Netherlands512 Posts
On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul wrote: I consider the "Golden rule" to be non-apliccable to situations like these There is a way you can apply the golden rule, but you have to generalize it. If you were tried for any crime, small or big, would you have the punishment match your crime? Would you have the punishment be reasonable and not cruel or inhumane? Yes. Now the question remains if you would consider the death penalty for drug trafficking a cruel or inhuman punishment, and this has been some matter of debate. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
Death penalty by starvation, that I could go for  | ||
|
johanes
Czech Republic2246 Posts
| ||
| ||
