|
On January 03 2010 08:54 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule. Regardless of expectations, if you would have yourself executed for a crime, the Golden Rule dictates you should do the same to other perpetrators of the same crime. If we can believe that the Chinese government expunges its own members for such crimes, it follows that they will gladly have themselves executed.
Yup. Lookie here!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18911849/
|
On January 03 2010 08:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule. Did you see my explanation of how the G-rule played out in this situation? Man wants to bring drugs to China. China brings drugs to man. Pretty simple reciprocation.
That's...not it at all. I mean sure it's ironic but completely off kilter. :>
^^^And again, killing their own executives/czars/etc is still just populist rage.
Though this man is being killed for taking enormous Bribes which is different all together and would probably, under most people's own conscience, result in a different punishment than low tier drug trafficking.
Maybe I'm wrong and the entirety, or majority of the Chinese population would, if individualized and given the G-Rule Scenario, would gladly take the death penalty for committing actions against the state. Basic preservation dictates otherwise, but enough cultural influence could change that.
Still, The G-rule isn't my only argument. No one has really argued against the paradox that is the death penalty in general besides that one guy who said "Yeah it's totally okay to kill hundreds of innocent people to kill a thousand imprisoned criminals."
|
On January 03 2010 09:02 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 08:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule. Did you see my explanation of how the G-rule played out in this situation? Man wants to bring drugs to China. China brings drugs to man. Pretty simple reciprocation. That's...not it at all. I mean sure it's ironic but completely off kilter. :> ^^^And again, killing their own executives/czars/etc is still just populist rage. Though this man is being killed for taking enormous Bribes which is different all together and would probably, under most people's own conscience, result in a different punishment than low tier drug trafficking. Maybe I'm wrong and the entirety, or majority of the Chinese population would, if individualized and given the G-Rule Scenario, would gladly take the death penalty for committing actions against the state. Basic preservation dictates otherwise, but enough cultural influence could change that. Still, The G-rule isn't my only argument. No one has really argued against the paradox that is the death penalty in general besides that one guy who said "Yeah it's totally okay to kill hundreds of innocent people to kill a thousand imprisoned criminals."
This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government.
If the 1.3 Billion people in China didn't like the PRC, it would be gone tomorrow. These are the same people that were more than happy to stage a revolution only 6 decades ago. The current generation growing up are all grandchildren of revolutionaries. If they weren't happy, trust me, they would not tolerate the PRC regime. The West likes to make stupid portrayals of China as some dictatorial totalitarian regime. It's the furthest thing from it. Chinese people have a long, LONG history of rebellion, revolt, revolution. The French with their liberal airs are like a PTA compared to Chinese people.
The Chinese population hasn't disagreed at all with their gov't on the issue of drug dealers. Not one bit. They're pretty much 100% for killing drug dealers. Hence why they don't become one. Your argument's just off base because you keep insisting "would we like getting executed if we got caught with drugs?" Yet you keep trying to say it's dependent on some time frame before they actually get caught. It's a pretty shabby argument.
The answer to your question is rather straightforward. Everyone thinks drug dealers suck and like seeing them die in China. But if an individual WAS a drug dealer, naturally he/she would NOT want to die. I'm not seeing the argument's merits right now.
I'm not following what's the paradox of the death penalty. I might have missed it earlier in the thread. What do you mean by it's a paradox?
|
United States43866 Posts
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things.
|
Well before saying something consider that in China, dealing with drugs is an immediate death sentence.
|
On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
The state decided to intervene and attempt to prevent people from taking responsibility for their own actions.
|
People in China do agree that drug dealers deserve extreme punishment. It is a sentiment shared by almost everyone. And there are not a lot of things the whole 1.3 billion plus population can agree on. People are actually getting much more dissatisfied and angry with the Chinese government than ever before, but it is only because of the widespread corruption and crimes like drug dealing. If anything people are only so pissed off because there are not enough people getting executed.
|
On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:
This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government.
You resort to tactics like claiming your opinions are facts. Of all the Chinese I ever met, they are not excited one bit with their government deciding what websites they can visit(The Great Firewall of China), etc. Their government has too much control over the people. We are no longer in the days of swords and shields, where numbers of men determine the outcome of revolutions. These are the days where technology decides the outcomes of violent conflicts, and that technology rests with governments not its citizens. That is why there will be no revolutions any more. If you speak out against the government, this is what they will do.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6858230/Liu-Xiaobo-a-leading-Chinese-intellectual-seeking-change.html
Hurray China! Who needs freedom or free speech? Silly westerners.
|
On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 09:02 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule. Did you see my explanation of how the G-rule played out in this situation? Man wants to bring drugs to China. China brings drugs to man. Pretty simple reciprocation. That's...not it at all. I mean sure it's ironic but completely off kilter. :> ^^^And again, killing their own executives/czars/etc is still just populist rage. Though this man is being killed for taking enormous Bribes which is different all together and would probably, under most people's own conscience, result in a different punishment than low tier drug trafficking. Maybe I'm wrong and the entirety, or majority of the Chinese population would, if individualized and given the G-Rule Scenario, would gladly take the death penalty for committing actions against the state. Basic preservation dictates otherwise, but enough cultural influence could change that. Still, The G-rule isn't my only argument. No one has really argued against the paradox that is the death penalty in general besides that one guy who said "Yeah it's totally okay to kill hundreds of innocent people to kill a thousand imprisoned criminals." This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. If the 1.3 Billion people in China didn't like the PRC, it would be gone tomorrow. These are the same people that were more than happy to stage a revolution only 6 decades ago. The current generation growing up are all grandchildren of revolutionaries. If they weren't happy, trust me, they would not tolerate the PRC regime. The West likes to make stupid portrayals of China as some dictatorial totalitarian regime. It's the furthest thing from it. Chinese people have a long, LONG history of rebellion, revolt, revolution. The French with their liberal airs are like a PTA compared to Chinese people. The Chinese population hasn't disagreed at all with their gov't on the issue of drug dealers. Not one bit. They're pretty much 100% for killing drug dealers. Hence why they don't become one. Your argument's just off base because you keep insisting "would we like getting executed if we got caught with drugs?" Yet you keep trying to say it's dependent on some time frame before they actually get caught. It's a pretty shabby argument. The answer to your question is rather straightforward. Everyone thinks drug dealers suck and like seeing them die in China. But if an individual WAS a drug dealer, naturally he/she would NOT want to die. I'm not seeing the argument's merits right now.
Right, if everyone wouldn't extend the same consequences -- reasonably -- to themselves, then it isn't a moral reflection. It's a reflection of mob mentality which is anonymous an creates a buffer between those supporting the death penalty and the death penalty itself.
A pretty good analogy is the funny but true Person + Internet Anonymity = jackass. Said person isn't actually a jackass, but the guise of anonymity removes reason from how they actually think and act. This isn't the case for everyone, but it's a solid generalization.
I'm not following what's the paradox of the death penalty. I might have missed it earlier in the thread. What do you mean by it's a paradox?
Alright. Bear with me then.
Every country with a death penalty dolls it out for murders. There's drug trafficking, rape, and even embezzlement and bribes sometimes, but ALL Death Penalty states have some degree of murder in the charges.
Now, there is no such thing as perfection in any human created system. This too goes for the justice system. It can and will make mistakes -- to use China as an example, they wouldn't have a supreme court to appeal to if it didn't recognize it makes judiciary mistakes..
Now, if the judiciary system falsely imprisons, then it also falsely hands out The Death Penalty. That means the state is sanctioning cold blooded, unwarranted murder on an innocent. And it will continue to do it multiple times. That means the exacters and supporters of the Death Penalty -- basically everyone who allows it to exist and continues its existence -- are responsible for innocent murders. By their own rules they themselves should be sentenced to death -- it's only fair because they are obviously not innocent, but those they killed were. Just because you're detached from the method doesn't mean you failed to support it and are in fact the primary cause behind it happening (As you said, China's pretty gung ho about the Death Penalty, as are most states that employ it).
The most popular counterargument to this is, "well of course, but that's a natural fault of the justice system. Should we imprison everyone who supports the justice system when they falsely imprison someone?" -- No, because you can recant imprisonment. Release, absolve, and owe reparations to those affected. Impossible when you murder someone. Falsely imprisoning someone is awful, but it's not permanent. It is not an irreparable crime, like Death.
This problem is solved by removing the Death Penalty as a whole from any justice system, replacing with life imprisonment with no parole, obviously. High security, tracking chips/braces in case of escape, et al.
|
On January 03 2010 11:14 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:
This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. You resort to tactics like claiming your opinions are facts. Of all the Chinese I ever met, they are not excited one bit with their government deciding what websites they can visit(The Great Firewall of China), etc. Their government has too much control over the people. We are no longer in the days of swords and shields, where numbers of men determine the outcome of revolutions. These are the days where technology decides the outcomes of violent conflicts, and that technology rests with governments not its citizens. That is why there will be no revolutions any more. If you speak out against the government, this is what they will do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6858230/Liu-Xiaobo-a-leading-Chinese-intellectual-seeking-change.htmlHurray China! Who needs freedom or free speech? Silly westerners.
Interestingly in this case, Chinese people ralled behind, cheered for their government in this incident of denying Britain's request and moving on to execute the British drug dealer. It is events like these, ie Chinese vs the West, that Chinese become protective and defensive of themselves, the government, etc.
|
On January 03 2010 11:19 iloahz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 11:14 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:
This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. You resort to tactics like claiming your opinions are facts. Of all the Chinese I ever met, they are not excited one bit with their government deciding what websites they can visit(The Great Firewall of China), etc. Their government has too much control over the people. We are no longer in the days of swords and shields, where numbers of men determine the outcome of revolutions. These are the days where technology decides the outcomes of violent conflicts, and that technology rests with governments not its citizens. That is why there will be no revolutions any more. If you speak out against the government, this is what they will do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6858230/Liu-Xiaobo-a-leading-Chinese-intellectual-seeking-change.htmlHurray China! Who needs freedom or free speech? Silly westerners. Interestingly in this case, Chinese people ralled behind, cheered for their government in this incident of denying Britain's request and moving on to execute the British drug dealer. It is events like these, ie Chinese vs the West, that Chinese become protective and defensive of themselves, the government, etc.
Even Westerners are seriously opposed to drug trafficking. You are right that there is still an element of nationalism in the country. No doubt, this is human nature. However, the German people were full of pride during that era of the Nazi Party - it doesn't make their actions justified.
|
On January 03 2010 11:24 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 11:19 iloahz wrote:On January 03 2010 11:14 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:
This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. You resort to tactics like claiming your opinions are facts. Of all the Chinese I ever met, they are not excited one bit with their government deciding what websites they can visit(The Great Firewall of China), etc. Their government has too much control over the people. We are no longer in the days of swords and shields, where numbers of men determine the outcome of revolutions. These are the days where technology decides the outcomes of violent conflicts, and that technology rests with governments not its citizens. That is why there will be no revolutions any more. If you speak out against the government, this is what they will do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6858230/Liu-Xiaobo-a-leading-Chinese-intellectual-seeking-change.htmlHurray China! Who needs freedom or free speech? Silly westerners. Interestingly in this case, Chinese people ralled behind, cheered for their government in this incident of denying Britain's request and moving on to execute the British drug dealer. It is events like these, ie Chinese vs the West, that Chinese become protective and defensive of themselves, the government, etc. Even Westerners are seriously opposed to drug trafficking. You are right that there is still an element of nationalism in the country. No doubt, this is human nature. However, the German people were full of pride during that era of the Nazi Party - it doesn't make their actions justified.
Um, hello, it's not our place to judge a country's morality! If Germany wants to kill all of the jews because being a Jew is illegal then who are we to judge?
lolol godwin
|
The death penalty is popular in China and drug smuggling is a loathed and increasing problem. For President Hu to give clemency to a foreigner would have been seen as weakness. Killing a Briton, after what the Chinese argue was due process, sends a message to all would be foreign drug smugglers of what they will face it if caught.
The Chinese fear instability above almost anything else. When you are managing a country of over 1 billion people that makes sense. The authorities believe that drugs are a part of creating instability and thus they will go to almost anyone lengths to combat it.That includes killing a man who, from all evidence available, appears to have been used by drug smugglers, and who was incapable of making rational decisions.
It's quite simplistic and naive to think of death penalty in China as an issue of morality. Above all it is politics: the government is not willing to make drastic changes to its status quo.
There is an ancient Chinese saying that "it's gospel on heaven, reason on earth that if you take one's life, you give your life". It is a deep rooted concept, and Chinese themselves have debated for many years why China has not, or even should not abolish the capital punishment. There are many factors, but I think above all, it is that the government unwilling to take the risk of offending the "mob", and even in this case, the mob actually could have a point. You already have such widespread corruption even when the state is executing 20 people every day, what horror could possibly ensue when death penalty is no longer there?
|
On January 03 2010 11:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 09:02 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule. Did you see my explanation of how the G-rule played out in this situation? Man wants to bring drugs to China. China brings drugs to man. Pretty simple reciprocation. That's...not it at all. I mean sure it's ironic but completely off kilter. :> ^^^And again, killing their own executives/czars/etc is still just populist rage. Though this man is being killed for taking enormous Bribes which is different all together and would probably, under most people's own conscience, result in a different punishment than low tier drug trafficking. Maybe I'm wrong and the entirety, or majority of the Chinese population would, if individualized and given the G-Rule Scenario, would gladly take the death penalty for committing actions against the state. Basic preservation dictates otherwise, but enough cultural influence could change that. Still, The G-rule isn't my only argument. No one has really argued against the paradox that is the death penalty in general besides that one guy who said "Yeah it's totally okay to kill hundreds of innocent people to kill a thousand imprisoned criminals." This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. If the 1.3 Billion people in China didn't like the PRC, it would be gone tomorrow. These are the same people that were more than happy to stage a revolution only 6 decades ago. The current generation growing up are all grandchildren of revolutionaries. If they weren't happy, trust me, they would not tolerate the PRC regime. The West likes to make stupid portrayals of China as some dictatorial totalitarian regime. It's the furthest thing from it. Chinese people have a long, LONG history of rebellion, revolt, revolution. The French with their liberal airs are like a PTA compared to Chinese people. The Chinese population hasn't disagreed at all with their gov't on the issue of drug dealers. Not one bit. They're pretty much 100% for killing drug dealers. Hence why they don't become one. Your argument's just off base because you keep insisting "would we like getting executed if we got caught with drugs?" Yet you keep trying to say it's dependent on some time frame before they actually get caught. It's a pretty shabby argument. The answer to your question is rather straightforward. Everyone thinks drug dealers suck and like seeing them die in China. But if an individual WAS a drug dealer, naturally he/she would NOT want to die. I'm not seeing the argument's merits right now. Right, if everyone wouldn't extend the same consequences -- reasonably -- to themselves, then it isn't a moral reflection. It's a reflection of mob mentality which is anonymous an creates a buffer between those supporting the death penalty and the death penalty itself. A pretty good analogy is the funny but true Person + Internet Anonymity = jackass. Said person isn't actually a jackass, but the guise of anonymity removes reason from how they actually think and act. This isn't the case for everyone, but it's a solid generalization. Show nested quote +I'm not following what's the paradox of the death penalty. I might have missed it earlier in the thread. What do you mean by it's a paradox? Alright. Bear with me then. Every country with a death penalty dolls it out for murders. There's drug trafficking, rape, and even embezzlement and bribes sometimes, but ALL Death Penalty states have some degree of murder in the charges. Now, there is no such thing as perfection in any human created system. This too goes for the justice system. It can and will make mistakes -- to use China as an example, they wouldn't have a supreme court to appeal to if it didn't recognize it makes judiciary mistakes.. Now, if the judiciary system falsely imprisons, then it also falsely hands out The Death Penalty. That means the state is sanctioning cold blooded, unwarranted murder on an innocent. And it will continue to do it multiple times. That means the exacters and supporters of the Death Penalty -- basically everyone who allows it to exist and continues its existence -- are responsible for innocent murders. By their own rules they themselves should be sentenced to death -- it's only fair because they are obviously not innocent, but those they killed were. Just because you're detached from the method doesn't mean you failed to support it and are in fact the primary cause behind it happening (As you said, China's pretty gung ho about the Death Penalty, as are most states that employ it). The most popular counterargument to this is, "well of course, but that's a natural fault of the justice system. Should we imprison everyone who supports the justice system when they falsely imprison someone?" -- No, because you can recant imprisonment. Release, absolve, and owe reparations to those affected. Impossible when you murder someone. Falsely imprisoning someone is awful, but it's not permanent. It is not an irreparable crime, like Death. This problem is solved by removing the Death Penalty as a whole from any justice system, replacing with life imprisonment with no parole, obviously. High security, tracking chips/braces in case of escape, et al.
Well, if you're Buddhist, death isn't irrepairable either 
All joking aside though, I disagree. Imprisonment can't be reversed. You can't turn back the hands of time. If someone's in the slammer for 10 years, they're not getting those years back. There isn't a single thing the judicial system can do to make up for false imprisonment. The entire point of imprisonment is that it is a punishment. You lose X amount of your life for Y crime. This has always been the rationale behind imprisonment. It's a milder form of death.
You're arguing that the very nature of imprisonment and execution are different. I disagree. I think they're just differences in degree. Imprisonment kills a chunk of your life. Death just kills the whole shebang.
To be honest, that's a minor detail though. The crux of why I disagree with you is that you're claiming a few errors in a system invalidate the system itself. This doesn't jive with me.
Look, innocent people get killed driving on the roads every single day. It happens. Should we shut the transportation system down? No. And it's not a mob mentality that's hiding behind anonymity determining that. Society as a whole has said they are fine with paying those consequences in exchange for the ability to get from point A to point B in 30 min instead of 30 days. Does the system have flaws? Yes. Do people get hurt when they haven't deserved it? Yes. Should we take the secretary of transportation and run them over with SUVs every time an innocent dies? That's pretty much what you're proposing. If you can't see how insane and illogical that is, I don't know what else to tell you.
Society long ago made a contract that gives certain systems or groups of individuals the right of life or death over them. This is what the military is. In exchange, civilians gain security and safety. This is why we listen to police. They keep our houses safe. We let them carry guns. That's the social contract. Do innocents sometimes get hurt? Yes. Do we think that's ok? No. But you don't tear a whole castle down because there's a crack in one stone. It's a question of percentages. If 30% of all cases were wrongfully judging a case and killing innocents, I'm pretty sure society would get off its collective ass and put a stop to it. 30% is not an acceptable failure rate. But when the failure rate is say 0.01% will people get pissed off? No. It's irrational. The failure rate is within reason.
Now unless you can come out with some solid data that says the death penalty has a failure rate that's disproportionately high, I don't think anyone's going to agree with you.
The reason very few people are disagreeing with the verdict of this case is they think the man is guilty. You're arguing the entire system of execution is wrong and frankly all you've got is an opinion to back it. There's no fundamental basis for why it's wrong. As a species and a society, we have the self-determination to deem a certain member ill-suited to living among us. This is a self-governing, self-regulating process.
Just because some guys in Europe said life is sacred doesn't make it so. And I shudder at the thought that as a social collective, we become so powerless that we can't even decide who doesn't deserve to live among us. Child rapists and serial killers are the type of dysfunctional members of society that we should always have the right to get rid of. Just coz their parents fucked and made them, doesn't make them have a whole book's worth of inalienable rights. Rights are earned. They're not inherent. People have said this earlier in the thread and I don't see any point to debate further unless you are willing to concede this point. If not, then the argument revolves around whether rights even exist or not. Because there can be no further debate until that intrinsic issue is agreed upon.
|
On January 03 2010 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things.
I agree. However, what StorkHwaiting says about China is true(his reasoning might be stretching it a bit). Chinese people generally like the government. And unlike what most westerners think, it is NOT a dictatorship. It's a one party system, and there's dissents within the party. You don't deliver, and someone will replace you. And IIRC the leadership changes every 3-6 years - max of two 3 year terms. There really is no need to go through revolutions to make changes.
As someone living in China right now, I can honestly say that the Chinese people I talk to think drugs are the devil. The level of disgust is ridiculous, especially due to the opium history. So suffice to say nobody will ever be against someone getting the bullet for trafficking 4 kilos of heroin. The fact that the guy's British only makes their protest more laughable in the eyes of Chinese.
|
On January 03 2010 11:14 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:
This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. You resort to tactics like claiming your opinions are facts. Of all the Chinese I ever met, they are not excited one bit with their government deciding what websites they can visit(The Great Firewall of China), etc. Their government has too much control over the people. We are no longer in the days of swords and shields, where numbers of men determine the outcome of revolutions. These are the days where technology decides the outcomes of violent conflicts, and that technology rests with governments not its citizens. That is why there will be no revolutions any more. If you speak out against the government, this is what they will do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6858230/Liu-Xiaobo-a-leading-Chinese-intellectual-seeking-change.htmlHurray China! Who needs freedom or free speech? Silly westerners.
You're really smart.
All the Australians I've met aren't happy that they have bandwith limits on their ISP. This must mean they want to rebel against their government. It's just Sydney is so technologically sophisticated that they can't rally round the fire. This is why there will be no Australian revolution, nor any revolutions anywhere anymore.
Sorry, you sound like someone who doesn't have the slightest clue about what's going on in China, what China is like as a country, or what the Chinese people think. And I find it rather unbelievable that of all the possible factors you'd use to prove Chinese are dissatisfied with their government to the point of rebellion you would choose the Internet. Just LOL.
|
On January 03 2010 12:32 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 11:14 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:
This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. You resort to tactics like claiming your opinions are facts. Of all the Chinese I ever met, they are not excited one bit with their government deciding what websites they can visit(The Great Firewall of China), etc. Their government has too much control over the people. We are no longer in the days of swords and shields, where numbers of men determine the outcome of revolutions. These are the days where technology decides the outcomes of violent conflicts, and that technology rests with governments not its citizens. That is why there will be no revolutions any more. If you speak out against the government, this is what they will do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6858230/Liu-Xiaobo-a-leading-Chinese-intellectual-seeking-change.htmlHurray China! Who needs freedom or free speech? Silly westerners. You're really smart. All the Australians I've met aren't happy that they have bandwith limits on their ISP. This must mean they want to rebel against their government. It's just Sydney is so technologically sophisticated that they can't rally round the fire. This is why there will be no Australian revolution, nor any revolutions anywhere anymore. Sorry, you sound like someone who doesn't have the slightest clue about what's going on in China, what China is like as a country, or what the Chinese people think. And I find it rather unbelievable that of all the possible factors you'd use to prove Chinese are dissatisfied with their government to the point of rebellion you would choose the Internet. Just LOL.
I should have clarified more. I was using revolution in the sense of a revolt. I don't think it is funny that there is no freedom of the press, or freedom of speech. In the article I mentioned, that man was peacefully organizing a group and the government swooped in and killed and arrested people. Do you think they are trying to prevent a Democratic government from arising and why do you think that is the case?
|
On January 03 2010 12:31 baubo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things. I agree. However, what StorkHwaiting says about China is true(his reasoning might be stretching it a bit). Chinese people generally like the government. And unlike what most westerners think, it is NOT a dictatorship. It's a one party system, and there's dissents within the party. You don't deliver, and someone will replace you. And IIRC the leadership changes every 3-6 years - max of two 3 year terms. There really is no need to go through revolutions to make changes. As someone living in China right now, I can honestly say that the Chinese people I talk to think drugs are the devil. The level of disgust is ridiculous, especially due to the opium history. So suffice to say nobody will ever be against someone getting the bullet for trafficking 4 kilos of heroin. The fact that the guy's British only makes their protest more laughable in the eyes of Chinese.
I don't think Chinese people like their government but they don't hate their government any more or less than people in other countries.
The social consensus has always being to deliver wealth and upgrading living standards. This much is agreed by pretty much everyone in China and to be honest with you, in this the Chinese state hasn't done too badly.
There will always be unhappy people but I will ask: Outside the small group of academics, how many of them are actually complaining over freedom of speech ?
The real social issue is wealth disparity. That's why it's ridiculous for anyone living in mainland China to take a Westerner's suggestion of democracy seriously.
Like baubo said before, Chinese government is not a dictatorship, the chance for any leader to claim that role is buried after Mao and his grand mistakes.
The Chinese state do have recourse for self-correction, even if slowly. Their party members come from all walks of life, it's very rare for the spouse of previous leadership to 'inherit' powers.
|
On January 03 2010 12:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 11:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 10:25 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 09:02 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule. Did you see my explanation of how the G-rule played out in this situation? Man wants to bring drugs to China. China brings drugs to man. Pretty simple reciprocation. That's...not it at all. I mean sure it's ironic but completely off kilter. :> ^^^And again, killing their own executives/czars/etc is still just populist rage. Though this man is being killed for taking enormous Bribes which is different all together and would probably, under most people's own conscience, result in a different punishment than low tier drug trafficking. Maybe I'm wrong and the entirety, or majority of the Chinese population would, if individualized and given the G-Rule Scenario, would gladly take the death penalty for committing actions against the state. Basic preservation dictates otherwise, but enough cultural influence could change that. Still, The G-rule isn't my only argument. No one has really argued against the paradox that is the death penalty in general besides that one guy who said "Yeah it's totally okay to kill hundreds of innocent people to kill a thousand imprisoned criminals." This is something most Western people have serious trouble understanding. Even though it's a very simple concept. While Chinese people complain and are disgruntled, in general they LIKE their government. If the 1.3 Billion people in China didn't like the PRC, it would be gone tomorrow. These are the same people that were more than happy to stage a revolution only 6 decades ago. The current generation growing up are all grandchildren of revolutionaries. If they weren't happy, trust me, they would not tolerate the PRC regime. The West likes to make stupid portrayals of China as some dictatorial totalitarian regime. It's the furthest thing from it. Chinese people have a long, LONG history of rebellion, revolt, revolution. The French with their liberal airs are like a PTA compared to Chinese people. The Chinese population hasn't disagreed at all with their gov't on the issue of drug dealers. Not one bit. They're pretty much 100% for killing drug dealers. Hence why they don't become one. Your argument's just off base because you keep insisting "would we like getting executed if we got caught with drugs?" Yet you keep trying to say it's dependent on some time frame before they actually get caught. It's a pretty shabby argument. The answer to your question is rather straightforward. Everyone thinks drug dealers suck and like seeing them die in China. But if an individual WAS a drug dealer, naturally he/she would NOT want to die. I'm not seeing the argument's merits right now. Right, if everyone wouldn't extend the same consequences -- reasonably -- to themselves, then it isn't a moral reflection. It's a reflection of mob mentality which is anonymous an creates a buffer between those supporting the death penalty and the death penalty itself. A pretty good analogy is the funny but true Person + Internet Anonymity = jackass. Said person isn't actually a jackass, but the guise of anonymity removes reason from how they actually think and act. This isn't the case for everyone, but it's a solid generalization. I'm not following what's the paradox of the death penalty. I might have missed it earlier in the thread. What do you mean by it's a paradox? Alright. Bear with me then. Every country with a death penalty dolls it out for murders. There's drug trafficking, rape, and even embezzlement and bribes sometimes, but ALL Death Penalty states have some degree of murder in the charges. Now, there is no such thing as perfection in any human created system. This too goes for the justice system. It can and will make mistakes -- to use China as an example, they wouldn't have a supreme court to appeal to if it didn't recognize it makes judiciary mistakes.. Now, if the judiciary system falsely imprisons, then it also falsely hands out The Death Penalty. That means the state is sanctioning cold blooded, unwarranted murder on an innocent. And it will continue to do it multiple times. That means the exacters and supporters of the Death Penalty -- basically everyone who allows it to exist and continues its existence -- are responsible for innocent murders. By their own rules they themselves should be sentenced to death -- it's only fair because they are obviously not innocent, but those they killed were. Just because you're detached from the method doesn't mean you failed to support it and are in fact the primary cause behind it happening (As you said, China's pretty gung ho about the Death Penalty, as are most states that employ it). The most popular counterargument to this is, "well of course, but that's a natural fault of the justice system. Should we imprison everyone who supports the justice system when they falsely imprison someone?" -- No, because you can recant imprisonment. Release, absolve, and owe reparations to those affected. Impossible when you murder someone. Falsely imprisoning someone is awful, but it's not permanent. It is not an irreparable crime, like Death. This problem is solved by removing the Death Penalty as a whole from any justice system, replacing with life imprisonment with no parole, obviously. High security, tracking chips/braces in case of escape, et al. Well, if you're Buddhist, death isn't irrepairable either All joking aside though, I disagree. Imprisonment can't be reversed. You can't turn back the hands of time. If someone's in the slammer for 10 years, they're not getting those years back. There isn't a single thing the judicial system can do to make up for false imprisonment. The entire point of imprisonment is that it is a punishment. You lose X amount of your life for Y crime. This has always been the rationale behind imprisonment. It's a milder form of death. You're arguing that the very nature of imprisonment and execution are different. I disagree. I think they're just differences in degree. Imprisonment kills a chunk of your life. Death just kills the whole shebang. To be honest, that's a minor detail though. The crux of why I disagree with you is that you're claiming a few errors in a system invalidate the system itself. This doesn't jive with me. Look, innocent people get killed driving on the roads every single day. It happens. Should we shut the transportation system down? No. And it's not a mob mentality that's hiding behind anonymity determining that. Society as a whole has said they are fine with paying those consequences in exchange for the ability to get from point A to point B in 30 min instead of 30 days. Does the system have flaws? Yes. Do people get hurt when they haven't deserved it? Yes. Should we take the secretary of transportation and run them over with SUVs every time an innocent dies? That's pretty much what you're proposing. If you can't see how insane and illogical that is, I don't know what else to tell you.
No, society is not fine with it. That's why there are laws to punish those who commit vehicular manslaughter. :> Death Penalty is an intentional act of killing when you, or you should, know that there's a very likely possibility that you are sentencing someone to death who is innocent and who could otherwise live without endangering anyone else by abolishing the Death Penalty. It is 100% avoidable at all instances with imprisonment. Your analogy isn't even close to a similar situation.
Society long ago made a contract that gives certain systems or groups of individuals the right of life or death over them. This is what the military is. In exchange, civilians gain security and safety. This is why we listen to police. They keep our houses safe. We let them carry guns. That's the social contract. Do innocents sometimes get hurt? Yes. Do we think that's ok? No. But you don't tear a whole castle down because there's a crack in one stone. It's a question of percentages. If 30% of all cases were wrongfully judging a case and killing innocents, I'm pretty sure society would get off its collective ass and put a stop to it. 30% is not an acceptable failure rate. But when the failure rate is say 0.01% will people get pissed off? No. It's irrational. The failure rate is within reason.
But if you could ENSURE that you build that castle without a crack by changing the way it's built, wouldn't you? This isn't a question of statistics so much as a question of what reason is there? Why do you have to kill these people when they could be innocent and possibly absolved if you just imprison them?
And, hell, if they want to die instead of "life" imprisonment, we should be able to accommodate that option.
Now unless you can come out with some solid data that says the death penalty has a failure rate that's disproportionately high, I don't think anyone's going to agree with you.
I already posted a source earlier about over one hundred death row absolvees just these past couple of years through DNA evidence. There's no hard and fast statistic on those who are already dead because, go figure, they're already dead and the cases are closed at that point. That's why it's a problem -- no chance of absolution. You can't even convince the world to remember them as a tragic mistake because there's no looking back on it. Snuffed, forgotten, and moved on from.
If you NEED a statistic with what evidence I absolutely do have, there's current a bit less than 3300 deathrow inmates in America. That was 100 absolved just recently on DNA evidence. So that's one in 33. That means that we have convicted one in every 33 deathrow inmates falsely -- and probably much more for those who didn't have significant DNA evidence.
Do you think it's worth killing an innocent man for every 30 or so killers who we could just as easily imprison? Does ANYONE here think that?
The reason very few people are disagreeing with the verdict of this case is they think the man is guilty. You're arguing the entire system of execution is wrong and frankly all you've got is an opinion to back it. There's no fundamental basis for why it's wrong. As a species and a society, we have the self-determination to deem a certain member ill-suited to living among us. This is a self-governing, self-regulating process.
It's not just an opinion. Obviously my opinion is killing is wrong so no one should kill, but I know that doesn't gel with everyone so I use obvious logical standpoints that, while supporting my opinion, aren't directly the same and are more approachable from ANY side.
Just because some guys in Europe said life is sacred doesn't make it so. And I shudder at the thought that as a social collective, we become so powerless that we can't even decide who doesn't deserve to live among us. Child rapists and serial killers are the type of dysfunctional members of society that we should always have the right to get rid of. Just coz their parents fucked and made them, doesn't make them have a whole book's worth of inalienable rights. Rights are earned. They're not inherent. People have said this earlier in the thread and I don't see any point to debate further unless you are willing to concede this point. If not, then the argument revolves around whether rights even exist or not. Because there can be no further debate until that intrinsic issue is agreed upon.
And for that innocent man your opinion helped killed, the man who did nothing to lose the rights he deserved, is it worth martyring him -- obviously against his will -- just because it makes you feel good that you killed a rapist or killer? As you said, you just want to kill someone because you don't like what they are, and I agree with you. I hate rapists. I hate them on a deeply personal level. You know what else I hate? Killers. I hate people who think it's ever okay to kill for whatever justification they want, whether it be revenge, justice, because they felt like it, whatever. The only time to kill is when someone is an immediate danger to another's life.
But that's my opinion. And I'm not forcing that on you. What I am forcing on you is the supposition that innocent people shouldn't be forced to die because you "feel" like killing the bad ones. Sating the populous's rage means nothing when they're doing exactly what they hate -- killing people who didn't deserve it. And that by supporting a system that invariably kills innocents, you are part of a massive system that acts as a serial killer without consequence.
|
On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 12:31 baubo wrote:On January 03 2010 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things. I agree. However, what StorkHwaiting says about China is true(his reasoning might be stretching it a bit). Chinese people generally like the government. And unlike what most westerners think, it is NOT a dictatorship. It's a one party system, and there's dissents within the party. You don't deliver, and someone will replace you. And IIRC the leadership changes every 3-6 years - max of two 3 year terms. There really is no need to go through revolutions to make changes. As someone living in China right now, I can honestly say that the Chinese people I talk to think drugs are the devil. The level of disgust is ridiculous, especially due to the opium history. So suffice to say nobody will ever be against someone getting the bullet for trafficking 4 kilos of heroin. The fact that the guy's British only makes their protest more laughable in the eyes of Chinese. I don't think Chinese people like their government but they don't hate their government any more or less than people in other countries. The social consensus has always being to deliver wealth and upgrading living standards. This much is agreed by pretty much everyone in China and to be honest with you, in this the Chinese state hasn't done too badly. There will always be unhappy people but I will ask: Outside the small group of academics, how many of them are actually complaining over freedom of speech ? The real social issue is wealth disparity. That's why it's ridiculous for anyone living in mainland China to take a Westerner's suggestion of democracy seriously. Like baubo said before, Chinese government is not a dictatorship, the chance for any leader to claim that role is buried after Mao and his grand mistakes. The Chinese state do have recourse for self-correction, even if slowly. Their party members come from all walks of life, it's very rare for the spouse of previous leadership to 'inherit' powers.
This is exactly what I meant when I was LOLing at using the internet as a reason for unrest. People in China don't care about that anywhere near as much as they care about their paychecks. And the main issues in China remain the large, poverty-stricken rural population of China that is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the relative affluence of the urban Chinese population. And then you have the large labor influx of rural people sending their kids to the city to look for jobs. So there are some demographic concerns there which could make the government's promise to improve quality of life rather difficult to make good on.
It's just silly seeing someone come into the debate and try to claim the Chinese are really freaking angry and oppressed because they can't go on Facebook or Youtube.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
