|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8304562.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8433704.stm
The news of Akmal Shaikh's execution is being carried in state-run newspapers and on state-controlled websites here in China. Most of the articles focus on the comments made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman earlier on, when she said the judicial process was legal and fair.
It's interesting to see what ordinary Chinese citizens are saying on the discussion boards. Most of these websites are state-controlled and subject to censorship but overwhelmingly the comments on those discussion sites are supportive of the Chinese government's decision.
One says: "This is all a show by the British government. If it had really wanted to save Akmal Shaikh it would have negotiated in secret with the Chinese." Another says: "If someone commits a crime on our territory we have the right to punish them."
There's very little discussion of the mental health issue on the websites and discussion boards. In terms of the discussions here in China, it doesn't seem to be registering.
|
Unfortunate guy. Chinese government might cancel execution finally, but Akmal should learn the local law first.
Btw, if you hope any citizens in China would show mercy on Akmal, it's quite ridiculous. More than one hundred years ago, British deliver tens of thousands of tons illegal drugs to China, along with their naval force. We almost forget the history, but he reminds us.
|
I`m confused.
Spokesman Robert Westhead said: "The way the Chinese authorities have stubbornly failed to take account of this poor man's severe mental illness shows that China is still stuck in the dark ages."
However the woman in one of the videos clearly says that Chinese law has provisions for mental illness.
So essentially China is being called barbaric because this man didn't have enough to put together a mental illness case, which is no surprise as he's in a foreign country.
Of all the good reasons to criticise China's treatment of human rights, this is a weak one.
|
Hard to judge one way or the other with the given information.
|
While he has a strong claim for mental insanity due to his retarded logic for going to China (or so he claims), what's to stop a guy like him from bringing in 4 kilos of explosives and detonating it on a plane? This is a matter of national security. Insanity is a pretty good defense for things like accidentally crashing a car, trying to suicide, maybe killing a spouse in a fit of manic rage. Carting heroine around to foreign countries just doesn't apply in my opinion.
You can't give people carte blanche to bring whatever they feel like into your country and then allow them to claim they did it because they're nuts. Yeah, he could have been there to become a pop star. He also could have been there because someone said "you do this drug deal for me and I know people in the entertainment biz who will make you a pop star."
It's pretty difficult to confuse 4 KILOS of heroine with anything else. What'd they tell him? Becoming a pop star involves baking a really big fucking cake? Perhaps the celebrity life involves a lot of wardrobe changes so he needed giant blocks of detergent?
If someone's crazy, you keep them in a facility or at home where you can watch him. I don't get why his family is crying about it now. They should have kept their crazy brother in the living room, tied to the sofa watching afternoon soaps. I'm sorry but carrying 4 kilos of heroine into China is a death sentence, much like carrying a boombox into the bathtub. The first way just takes a little bit longer.
|
yes we all know that china does not give a fuck about human rights etc. etc.
|
shouldn't china have extradited him if they wanted to appear reasonable? executing a foreigner whose mental health is in doubt is brash and it sends a bad message to the international community.
edit - bi-polar disorder can cause just the sort of delusions that would make a man think bringing 4 kilos of heroin into china is reasonable. a bi-polar person on their meds is probably just like you or me, but off their meds (and people do stop taking them, for various reasons) they can be insane.
|
He's not a retard, he's not insane.... he's bipolar... my sister is bipolar and she knows what the fuck she's doing. If she had 4kilos of heroine with her, she would know. This guy is trying to act innocent when he isn't. Bipolar is hardly a reason to be treated differently. Bipolar just means you are like, mood swingy and stuff... going from being depressed to being angry. If this guy had down syndrome then he should have had a different trial. He broke the law in china, he pays the price.
|
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.
|
On December 31 2009 12:52 aikepah wrote:
He's not a retard, he's not insane.... he's bipolar... my sister is bipolar and she knows what the fuck she's doing. If she had 4kilos of heroine with her, she would know. This guy is trying to act innocent when he isn't. Bipolar is hardly a reason to be treated differently. Bipolar just means you are like, mood swingy and stuff... going from being depressed to being angry. If this guy had down syndrome then he should have had a different trial. He broke the law in china, he pays the price.
Sally Rowen, of the legal charity Reprieve, said a report from a consultant forensic psychologist had diagnosed him with bipolar disorder and delusional psychosis.
Maybe you forgot to read about the psychosis part, seeing as how that would PROBABLY be the part argued here.
EDIT: Ah, sorry, it was only in the second link. Arguing a case of insanity for smuggling heroin would be hard to do in court with only bipolar disorder anyway, I would imagine.
|
On December 31 2009 12:52 aikepah wrote:
He's not a retard, he's not insane.... he's bipolar... my sister is bipolar and she knows what the fuck she's doing. If she had 4kilos of heroine with her, she would know. This guy is trying to act innocent when he isn't. Bipolar is hardly a reason to be treated differently. Bipolar just means you are like, mood swingy and stuff... going from being depressed to being angry. If this guy had down syndrome then he should have had a different trial. He broke the law in china, he pays the price.
Don't be ignorant, there are different degrees of severity. People who suffer from mania are known to suddenly take loans they can never pay off for example, assisting with heroine smuggling can definately be influenced by bipolar disorder heavily. Don't base your case on one example of a well functioning individual while being completely ignorant of the other.
|
On December 31 2009 13:14 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 12:52 aikepah wrote:
He's not a retard, he's not insane.... he's bipolar... my sister is bipolar and she knows what the fuck she's doing. If she had 4kilos of heroine with her, she would know. This guy is trying to act innocent when he isn't. Bipolar is hardly a reason to be treated differently. Bipolar just means you are like, mood swingy and stuff... going from being depressed to being angry. If this guy had down syndrome then he should have had a different trial. He broke the law in china, he pays the price. Don't be ignorant, there are different degrees of severity. People who suffer from mania are known to suddenly take loans they can never pay off for example, assisting with heroine smuggling can definately be influenced by bipolar disorder heavily. Don't base your case on one example of a well functioning individual while being completely ignorant of the other.
"Pleading insanity" is not a term that Chinese courts understand, unfortunately.
Anyway, this guy would have been found guilty of drug trafficking in any country and been sentenced. Only difference here is the punishment.
|
Not everyone can claim an illness and wave off all responsibility for their actions.
The only thing that disturbs me is that you get the death penalty for heroine. Imagine in the US if we executed someone for this? The international community would be in hysteria. But China does what China wants, I guess.
|
On December 31 2009 13:34 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Not everyone can claim an illness and wave off all responsibility for their actions.
The only thing that disturbs me is that you get the death penalty for heroine. Imagine in the US if we executed someone for this? The international community would be in hysteria. But China does what China wants, I guess.
It's totally different in Asian countries. Do you know how expensive for heroine in China? More than USD 300 per gram, 4000 grams heroine can easily destroy hundreds of family in China. In China, if you bring heroine more than 50 grams one time, you can get death penalty. I have to say if Akmal kill one Chinese in China, he would probably escape from death penalty.
Btw, In Dec., there were five Chinese who get death sentence in Vietnam for illegal drugs. Any Chinese criticize it? We just say, good job, Vietnam guys.
|
anyone who even thinks of bringing drugs into asia is insane to begin with. Smuft's lucky he was in South Korea and not China :D
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
Perfect decision, You don't pull sissy crap with people bringing kilograms of heroine in your country.
|
Anybody remember Johannes van Damme?
Johannes van Damme (1 June 1935, Middelburg – 23 September 1994, Singapore) was a Dutch engineer executed by hanging in Singapore for smuggling heroin. He was the first European executed in Singapore since its independence.
Van Damme had lived in Nigeria for a while and was married to a Nigerian woman at the time of his arrest. He was arrested on September 27, 1991, at Singapore Changi Airport. In a secret compartment of his trunk, 4.32 kilograms (9.5 lb) of heroin was found. Van Damme claimed he had been framed by his Nigerian engineer partner, but this claim was rejected by the court. In November 1993, his appeal was rejected, and the sentence was upheld. A plea for clemency from the Dutch government was rejected by the President of Singapore. Neither could a letter from Queen Beatrix sent to the President prevent van Damme from being executed. He was hanged at Changi Prison on the morning of Friday, September 23, 1994, between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.
|
gooooooo china!!!
no more british drugs, we will not stand for it!
|
They have put a bad case to argue because they said "he had been struggling with the illness for years" but at the same time he never got any medical advise/attention. Considering the fact that NHS is free, granted, a massive waiting list, his failing to deal with it sooner (with help of his family? hello?) is a massive downfall.
It gets even harder trying to prove whether he had some sort of mental problem 2 years ago now, considering the fact that it wasn't done at that time. It could well be that he has gone crazy after staying in a Chinese prison. I think that capital punishment is wrong, but I guess it is more of a moral issue for me and can't really judge if they are doing the right thing.
|
On December 31 2009 14:35 Superiorwolf wrote:
gooooooo china!!!
no more british drugs, we will not stand for it!
For realz. Take your opiates somewhere else.
|
Hm, it just seems so insane to execute over drug trafficking. Maybe that's just me =/
On December 31 2009 14:43 Fangster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 14:35 Superiorwolf wrote:
gooooooo china!!!
no more british drugs, we will not stand for it! For realz. Take your opiates somewhere else.
Heroin is an opioid, not an opiate. Take that!
|
On December 31 2009 14:27 Sadist wrote:
anyone who even thinks of bringing drugs into asia is insane to begin with. Smuft's lucky he was in South Korea and not China :D
Hahaha I remember that.
But I agree with pretty much everyone here. Excuses excuses. >
|
On December 31 2009 14:44 Valentine wrote:
Hm, it just seems so insane to execute over drug trafficking. Maybe that's just me =/
well if something like the british and their opium could do what it did to china
every country has to make stringent laws - get the fuck out or you'll die
anything less and an invasion of drugs could result if the circumstances became conducive enough
|
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it.
|
On December 31 2009 14:47 Superiorwolf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 14:44 Valentine wrote:
Hm, it just seems so insane to execute over drug trafficking. Maybe that's just me =/ well if something like the british and their opium could do what it did to china every country has to make stringent laws - get the fuck out or you'll die anything less and an invasion of drugs could result if the circumstances became conducive enough
It still just doesn't sit well with me, that's all. I don't have a strong standing on capital punishment overall (I'm leaning against it), but trafficking just seems very minor in my opinion.
|
what the fuck. Heroine is great. He is caught, his fault.
|
Whoever pushed the decision to execute may want to send a message to drug traffickers: threatening thousands of lives in China entails forfeiting your life.
|
I'd make a discriminating comment about China and chinese people, you know....one that would really stand out and make peoples' blood boil over. but i won't because.....i'd probably get banned
hahahaha
because making racist comments against black people is wrong
|
As much as I would love to think this is China getting revenge for the Opium wars, I just don't see it. This guy is just a fucking moran. The End.
|
"The amount of heroin he brought into China was 4,030g, enough to cause 26,800 deaths, threatening numerous families," it said.
the guy got what he deserved, let's just put it like that.
|
I dont know why many people in this thread make discimination posts about China.
He carried the goddam 4KG heroine, what do you expect?
If the man is really insane and can prove it in further appeal in the court I think its very good chance that Chinese judge will reduce his sentence.
Why do many people here almost immediately side with the UK man? China did what is necessary to ensure the safety of their citizen. And we have to respect that.
|
This has the same problem as any other country's drug war. Great, you've killed one person. It's not like it'd be ridiculously difficult to get some other retard to try and smuggle in more heroin. The reward is just too great.
|
It's interesting to see what ordinary Chinese citizens are saying on the discussion boards. Most of these websites are state-controlled and subject to censorship but overwhelmingly the comments on those discussion sites are supportive of the Chinese government's decision.
Well that just makes no sense at all!
|
most of the countries in asia says it right on their immigration card.
" DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS "
i see no surprise in this one. it's a very serious offence. just imagine all the lives he'll be destroying with that amount of heroin.
|
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens?
|
4030g of heroin is also enough heroin for zero people to die from. Depends on the user, of course.
|
I guess the British navy isn't as scary as it once was...
And I think China has already gotten its revenge for the Opium War by exporting cheap, toxic goods to the West. Let this poor man go.
|
On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens?
It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves.
|
|
|
On December 31 2009 15:34 Valentine wrote:
4030g of heroin is also enough heroin for zero people to die from. Depends on the user, of course.
that's kinda like saying a nuclear bomb is enough to kill millions, or zero, depending on where throw the bomb.
|
I wish we could do the same thing in Italy.
|
On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens?
This seems to be the most relevant and contestable crux of argument that this thread can offer. Is the act of transporting this amount of these drugs likely to inflict peril on thousands of lives? Few on TL would be qualified to speak authoritatively on the issues this issue involves (and it involves more than medicine), but here are some simple reasons that Asian governments may hold to:
(These are reasons why they may feel that trafficking is a grave offense.)
Heroin on Chinese soil is more likely to be sold in China than elsewhere, since trafficking it elsewhere entails added risks, costs, and forgoes profits in China. Thus bringing heroin into China increases the likelihood of said heroin being sold. I assume China is a profitable market, not some sort of juncture where people take drugs then take them elsewhere.
Heroin has high potential for addiction. Heroin is expensive. Addicted customers are far more likely to continue purchasing regardless of their financial situation.
Families whose finances are imperiled by inextricable drug costs may become unable to feed themselves, and thus become inviable.
|
On December 31 2009 15:48 iloahz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:34 Valentine wrote:
4030g of heroin is also enough heroin for zero people to die from. Depends on the user, of course. that's kinda like saying a nuclear bomb is enough to kill millions, or zero, depending on where throw the bomb.
How so?
|
On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it.
Fairly ironic for an American to say in a capital punishment thread 
|
On December 31 2009 15:59 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? This seems to be the most relevant and contestable crux of argument that this thread can offer. Is the act of transporting this amount of these drugs likely to inflict peril on thousands of lives? Few on TL would be qualified to speak authoritatively on the issues this issue involves (and it involves more than medicine), but here are some simple reasons that Asian governments may hold to: (These are reasons why they may feel that trafficking is a grave offense.) Heroin on Chinese soil is more likely to be sold in China than elsewhere, since trafficking it elsewhere entails added risks, costs, and forgoes profits in China. Thus bringing heroin into China increases the likelihood of said heroin being sold. I assume China is a profitable market, not some sort of juncture where people take drugs then take them elsewhere. Heroin has high potential for addiction. Heroin is expensive. Addicted customers are far more likely to continue purchasing regardless of their financial situation. Families whose finances are imperiled by inextricable drug costs may become unable to feed themselves, and thus become inviable.
While heroin is addictive, and we all know that the chinese are sensitive about opiates, the fact is that the chinese officials refused to even further examine the guy's case, and that's what the whole human rights hubbub is about.
|
personally I find it a little odd for the family to not intervene into actions like this and trying to create an airline in foreign countries, these things are obviously insane for someone who has no prior training or knowledge of what the fuck they are doing, its just so weird that the family even allowed him to travel to a foreign country alone with such a ludicrous plan like becoming a "Popstar" without any public singing history.
EDIT: who lets someone who had mental problems goto fucking china ALONE >.>
|
wait, am i supposed to be against china on this one?
|
Sorry but as an avid green drug user I think anybody with anything white deserves the most severe punishments govts are willing to dish out.
I mean its like ...
I jack off with a sock puppet everyday and then go murder the cast of sesame street .....
brb
|
On December 31 2009 17:49 AttackZerg wrote:
Sorry but as an avid green drug user I think anybody with anything white deserves the most severe punishments govts are willing to dish out.
I mean its like ...
I jack off with a sock puppet everyday and then go murder the cast of sesame street .....
brb
Wat
Being a "green drug user" just means you're full of hypocrisy and use idiotic double standards when allowing which chemicals to effect your brain.
Obviously nobody controls your choices on what you choose to put inside you, but just saying you only use "natural" drugs makes about as much sense to me as someone saying that they only drink alcohol, and then claiming that it isn't a drug either.
|
On December 31 2009 15:08 ProbeSaturation wrote:
I'd make a discriminating comment about China and chinese people, you know....one that would really stand out and make peoples' blood boil over. but i won't because.....i'd probably get banned
hahahaha
because making racist comments against black people is wrong
hahaha i found this really funny for some reason and also found myself agreeing with it
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 31 2009 14:47 Superiorwolf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 14:44 Valentine wrote:
Hm, it just seems so insane to execute over drug trafficking. Maybe that's just me =/ well if something like the british and their opium could do what it did to china every country has to make stringent laws - get the fuck out or you'll die anything less and an invasion of drugs could result if the circumstances became conducive enough
I'm so glad your parents probably beat you.
|
On December 31 2009 17:49 AttackZerg wrote:
Sorry but as an avid green drug user I think anybody with anything white deserves the most severe punishments govts are willing to dish out.
I mean its like ...
I jack off with a sock puppet everyday and then go murder the cast of sesame street .....
brb
i think this statement is retarded. you aren't on some superior moral pedestal because you only do "green" drugs. sure cocaine and heroin are far worse than weed, but users of them do drugs for the same reason you do (it makes them feel good). ugh this is the type of mentality which keeps support for the "war on drugs" up
|
What's This?
ANOTHER China thread?
ANOTHER COMMUNIST CHINA has NO HUMAN RIGHTS thread?
CHINA RED COMMUNIST MAO ZE DONG WAS AN IDIOT ALL CHINESE ARE RUDE AND EAT DOG MEAT NO ONE IN CHINA CAN VOTE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH NEWS IS CENSORED BOOKS ARE BANNED SECRET NUKES SELLING WEAPONS TO SUDAN LEAD PAINT CHILD LABOUR SWEAT SHOPS LAZER BEAMS FLASHING LIGHTS FAKE ROLEXES ANIMAL CRUELTY BIGGEST POLLUTION CAUSE LONG WORKING HOURS MORE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS THAN THE UNITED STATES
pm me if I forgot anything.
|
you forgot CHINESE PEOPLE lololol like..c'mon. chinese people!!!!
|
i like the family saying "he has a mental problem"
Yeahh smuggling drugs is such a mental problem 
|
On December 31 2009 18:33 pyrogenetix wrote:
What's This?
ANOTHER China thread?
ANOTHER COMMUNIST CHINA has NO HUMAN RIGHTS thread?
CHINA RED COMMUNIST MAO ZE DONG WAS AN IDIOT ALL CHINESE ARE RUDE AND EAT DOG MEAT NO ONE IN CHINA CAN VOTE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH NEWS IS CENSORED BOOKS ARE BANNED SECRET NUKES SELLING WEAPONS TO SUDAN LEAD PAINT CHILD LABOUR SWEAT SHOPS LAZER BEAMS FLASHING LIGHTS FAKE ROLEXES ANIMAL CRUELTY BIGGEST POLLUTION CAUSE LONG WORKING HOURS MORE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS THAN THE UNITED STATES
pm me if I forgot anything.
wow that was like a really decent list
|
I support China's decision to execute drug dealers. This is a good example.
DIE DRUG TRAFFICKERS!
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On December 31 2009 18:33 pyrogenetix wrote:
What's This?
ANOTHER China thread?
ANOTHER COMMUNIST CHINA has NO HUMAN RIGHTS thread?
CHINA RED COMMUNIST MAO ZE DONG WAS AN IDIOT ALL CHINESE ARE RUDE AND EAT DOG MEAT NO ONE IN CHINA CAN VOTE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH NEWS IS CENSORED BOOKS ARE BANNED SECRET NUKES SELLING WEAPONS TO SUDAN LEAD PAINT CHILD LABOUR SWEAT SHOPS LAZER BEAMS FLASHING LIGHTS FAKE ROLEXES ANIMAL CRUELTY BIGGEST POLLUTION CAUSE LONG WORKING HOURS MORE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS THAN THE UNITED STATES
pm me if I forgot anything.
You forget that we also eat cat meat~!
|
China killed someone after comitting a crime aginst China law???
Really???
THIS HAS NEVER EVER HAPPENED BEFORE AND CLEARLY DESERVES IT'S OWN THREAD.
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
Incoming: Rabid Chinese Nationalism.
It took ~3 pages for the thread to degenerate into brainless idiots praising China's totalitarianism.
Sigh.
|
Deserved it. 4kgs of heroin and he totally didn't know about it haha right.
|
On December 31 2009 19:23 orgolove wrote:
Incoming: Rabid Chinese Nationalism.
It took ~3 pages for the thread to degenerate into brainless idiots praising China's totalitarianism.
Sigh.
I dislike China and most of their inhumane practices
I don't need a bunch of people agreeing with my to affirm my standpoint on human rights.
Maybe you should try it.
|
I don't think mental disorder is a good defense for drug smuggling. It might be a good defense for... say, manslaughter, though.
|
On December 31 2009 16:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it. Fairly ironic for an American to say in a capital punishment thread
Actually, it depends on the states. If I recall correctly there are 5 states that account for more than 70% of the capital punishments in US. Texas is one of them, unsurprisingly.
|
On December 31 2009 17:52 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 17:49 AttackZerg wrote:
Sorry but as an avid green drug user I think anybody with anything white deserves the most severe punishments govts are willing to dish out.
I mean its like ...
I jack off with a sock puppet everyday and then go murder the cast of sesame street .....
brb Wat Being a "green drug user" just means you're full of hypocrisy and use idiotic double standards when allowing which chemicals to effect your brain. Obviously nobody controls your choices on what you choose to put inside you, but just saying you only use "natural" drugs makes about as much sense to me as someone saying that they only drink alcohol, and then claiming that it isn't a drug either.
Yes that is it you nailed me ....
OR
Actually my standards are just that standards. I have smoked weed for years, nobody ever died or was chronically addicted after single or a handfull of uses. Can the same be said for white drugs?
White drugs ruin peoples lives flat out.
Now where I live it is a little different because there is so much bloody money that regular people sometimes dabble and drop it quickly but I've also seen alot of bright lights dimed in that same circle.
We aren't even talking about coke here, we are talking about heroine the stuff junkies are made out of.
Also my drug helps with my intense ADHD and allows me to manage both of the companys that I own. Aside from terminal medical cases there is nobody who can rationaly claim heroine 'helps' them or that spreading heroine is anything BUT murder ... well maybe a junkie but it isn't the drug or the drug dealers fault right... it is the users?
Also I am quiting smoking (not weed) and my body itches and I feel like I'm going insane. The fight I'm going through is supposed to be the second hardest fight in the addiction realm .... guess which is the winner? Thats right heroine AND for some people a single use is enough to begin experiencing the same withdrawls that I'm experiencing as a veteran chain smoker for 6 years.
You want to call it a double standard thats fine. I call it reality I'll smoke my weed that I legally grow, and legally smoke (yes I'm a medicated californian) while you can theorycraft the difference between what I do and what he attempted to do.
Sorry but that drug is the mother fucking devil and the people at the tops of those strings are some of the most vicious murders on the planet.
|
Was reading about this case few days ago.. was he already executed or when's the date? I thought they would make little show and then, as a sign of great chinese will, will let him go.
Also from what I read - it wasn't really about him not knowing about the heroine? They said he wanted to start a career of a singer but some gang used him (his mental illness?) and made him smugle drugs.
|
All things considered, this guy really did sound like something was wrong with his brain.
|
On December 31 2009 18:33 pyrogenetix wrote:
What's This?
ANOTHER China thread?
ANOTHER COMMUNIST CHINA has NO HUMAN RIGHTS thread?
CHINA RED COMMUNIST MAO ZE DONG WAS AN IDIOT ALL CHINESE ARE RUDE AND EAT DOG MEAT NO ONE IN CHINA CAN VOTE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH NEWS IS CENSORED BOOKS ARE BANNED SECRET NUKES SELLING WEAPONS TO SUDAN LEAD PAINT CHILD LABOUR SWEAT SHOPS LAZER BEAMS FLASHING LIGHTS FAKE ROLEXES ANIMAL CRUELTY BIGGEST POLLUTION CAUSE LONG WORKING HOURS MORE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS THAN THE UNITED STATES
pm me if I forgot anything.
lmao!
|
England2670 Posts
On December 31 2009 19:27 valaki wrote:
Deserved it. 4kgs of heroin and he totally didn't know about it haha right.
Someone had 40~ condoms filled with Cocaine in their stomach and was caught in an airport recently and claims he didn't know about it.
British government really don't like capital punishment. The way I see it, this guy got the punishment that was expected. If he was returned here, he would be wandering the streets with this stuff. I think you'll find a large number of English people will agree with China too.
|
i think people should be judged in their own country after their own law, just like back then the romans did.
i remember the german boy who flirted with a british gril who told him she was 17 or so and he ended up in prison in turkey for 1 or 2 years under bad conditions... wtf ??
this is different... imho death is a good judgment in china because it has so many people and it cant allow itself to show weakness. but for wester countries is bad bad.
|
On December 31 2009 19:45 Flicky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 19:27 valaki wrote:
Deserved it. 4kgs of heroin and he totally didn't know about it haha right. Someone had 40~ condoms filled with Cocaine in their stomach and was caught in an airport recently and claims he didn't know about it. British government really don't like capital punishment. The way I see it, this guy got the punishment that was expected. If he was returned here, he would be wandering the streets with this stuff. I think you'll find a large number of English people will agree with China too.
Agreeing because this man is actually a Muslim?
On December 31 2009 19:50 oN_Silva wrote:
i think people should be judged in their own country after their own law
You got to be joking. What if I am the dictator of some small crappy country and I make the country to have no laws at all... then can I go around to your home and rape you then declare myself innocent?
On December 31 2009 19:40 ondik wrote:
Was reading about this case few days ago.. was he already executed or when's the date? I thought they would make little show and then, as a sign of great chinese will, will let him go.
He is already dead.
|
chinese people...can we trust them?
|
China political communication never fails to entertain.
"Judicial independence" lol
|
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough.
|
England2670 Posts
On December 31 2009 20:00 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 19:45 Flicky wrote:On December 31 2009 19:27 valaki wrote:
Deserved it. 4kgs of heroin and he totally didn't know about it haha right. Someone had 40~ condoms filled with Cocaine in their stomach and was caught in an airport recently and claims he didn't know about it. British government really don't like capital punishment. The way I see it, this guy got the punishment that was expected. If he was returned here, he would be wandering the streets with this stuff. I think you'll find a large number of English people will agree with China too. Agreeing because this man is actually a Muslim?
Wow, that's not offensive. Just assume everyone in England is islamophobic. It doesn't matter who it was. Could've been a 30 year old mother or a bear dressed as a black guy for all I care. Justice is blind and all that. But really, don't just insult an entire country like that, especially with no ground to base it on.
|
United States43820 Posts
I heard his daughter interviewed on the BBC. It was really harsh to listen to it. "Do you still have any hopes?" "No, it's beyond where I still had hope" "So you're certain he's going to die" "Yes" "And there's nothing you can do about it?" "No"
Was tactless beyond belief.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough.
Come on now, nationalism happens in every country.
|
On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country.
True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's.
|
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's.
Nothing wrong with old values, don't tell people how to live. No, you aren't the smartest person on the planet.
|
On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's.
stupidest and more inconsiderate comment yet
you shouldn't even be in here, let alone running that mouth
TBH I'm getting tired of these news reports. Yeah, they executed 1 guy. For smuggling heroin. A lot of heroin. To a country with a bad history for that crap. Hence the law, written from that history, is harsh. He does it all.
It's like looking at a series of precipitating causes of a plane crash. Yes, the end result is death.
|
On December 31 2009 20:54 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's. Nothing wrong with old values, don't tell people how to live. No, you aren't the smartest person on the planet.
I wouldn't be suprised to see China evolve into something like Singapore in the future rather than become a liberal democracy.
|
On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well.
Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
|
On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
I disagree with occupation of countries (but I am hardly interested in arguing over it) and Japan's wartime actions obviously far exceed what you've just listed.
|
On December 31 2009 21:03 Spinfusor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here. I disagree with occupation of countries (but I am hardly interested in arguing over it) and Japan's wartime actions obviously far exceed what you've just listed.
True. Japan was way worse. I didnt mean to say it was the same. What I meant was that it kinda reminded me of. Guess I'm just expressing myself badlly again. Sorry for that.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On December 31 2009 21:07 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 21:03 Spinfusor wrote:On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here. I disagree with occupation of countries (but I am hardly interested in arguing over it) and Japan's wartime actions obviously far exceed what you've just listed. True. Japan was way worse. I didnt mean to say it was the same. What I meant was that it kinda reminded me of. Guess I'm just expressing myself badlly again. Sorry for that.
How cute, it seems your media teaches your people to self hate as well.
|
Good job China.
Love how naive most of you posters are. Drug trade not a big deal?
The entire country of Mexico is destabilized because of it. Hundreds of people die everyday because of it.
Mexico is basically a failed state, and the direct cause is drug trafficking. And here we are complaining about some drug smuggler's punishment.
|
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here? The first rule of drug dealing is KNOW THE LAW. A large part of the industry is assessing and assuming risk. In this case, this man assumed the risk (whether he knew it or not) and went ahead with it. It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility...
Drug trafficking is a very big and very serious industry. I don't think you can fault some countries for taking a harsher stance on it than others. Punishments are not only meted to deal with the crime at hand, but also to deter future potential offenders. Nations all over the world have "zero tolerance" policies against one thing or another, but this isn't even a case of a zero tolerance policy. The guy had a good amount of heroine on him. We're not talking personal use, here. Quite frankly, if most of you have seen what heroine even in small amounts can do to people and families, I think you wouldn't be so sensitive about the punishment of a merchant of it. Even from a liberal standpoint, heroine is a very serious drug.
While the argument for insanity could be made, being insane doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions in the end.
I'm surprised by the amount of argument regarding this. We're not talking about some sort of arbitrary law and punishment such as a death penalty for wearing blue pants. Drug laws are a standard thing across the globe. The only difference comes down to the level of punishment and quite frankly, China isn't even close to the worst when it comes to that either. The message here is simple, don't smuggle and distribute drugs...
There's plenty of arguments to be made about China in regard to human rights and such, but of all of them, this one is pretty weak...
|
I know that he did something wrong and all and I wasn't at all surprised that China executed this guy but I still think it's a bit harsh to kill him for it.
|
On December 31 2009 13:34 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Not everyone can claim an illness and wave off all responsibility for their actions.
The only thing that disturbs me is that you get the death penalty for heroine. Imagine in the US if we executed someone for this? The international community would be in hysteria. But China does what China wants, I guess.
Yes, lets cry because of what Chine can do and the US can't... If China invaded A country let alone TWO now and the US wasn't for it guess what would happen. Of all countries in the world the US is the one that has the most freedom to do what it wants.
|
I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm completely baffled how many people seem to completely neglect basic human rights, even endorse their violation. It doesn't matter one single bit if that guy violated China's law, death penalty should never, ever even be considered as an acceptable punishment.
|
On December 31 2009 12:25 asleepingpig wrote:
Unfortunate guy. Chinese government might cancel execution finally, but Akmal should learn the local law first.
Btw, if you hope any citizens in China would show mercy on Akmal, it's quite ridiculous. More than one hundred years ago, British deliver tens of thousands of tons illegal drugs to China, along with their naval force. We almost forget the history, but he reminds us.
Wasn't opium used in Chine originaly? Around 1480's if i' not mistaken
|
On December 31 2009 20:59 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:49 Spinfusor wrote:
What China's actions now are similar to Japan's during WWII? Perhaps you didn't think through that all that well. Occupation of neightouring countries, political prisoners and ruled through a totalitarian system. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
Sounds like the USA to me. Don't think I've said anything over the edge here.
Except the USA's occupation is around da world!! And we build prisons in OTHER countries for our political prisoners lololol. As long as we torture em in Cuba it's humane baby!
|
On December 31 2009 22:25 HeartOfTofu wrote:
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here?
Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility...
It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed.
Drug trafficking is a very big and very serious industry. I don't think you can fault some countries for taking a harsher stance on it than others.
Drug trafficking is only a very big and serious industry because of the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs would solve many of drug-related problems. Among other things, the Mafia would lose most of their funding. The benefits of waging the very costly war on drugs seem virtually negligible in comparison to all the trouble it is causing. There is little evidence that the war on drugs is even decreasing the number of drug addicts (and some against)!
Regardless of what you personally think about drugs (maybe you lost your sister to heroin), I don't think you can uphold the war on drugs as some high and noble ideal that we should be willing to make sacrifices for, like conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregard for universal human rights.
While the argument for insanity could be made, being insane doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions in the end.
Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing.
I'm surprised by the amount of argument regarding this. (...) There's plenty of arguments to be made about China in regard to human rights and such, but of all of them, this one is pretty weak...
So you honestly cannot understand some people would consider execution for drug trafficking a cruel and inhuman punishment? Let alone the fact that this man cannot fully be held accountable for his actions due to a mental illness?
|
|
|
On December 31 2009 22:58 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 22:25 HeartOfTofu wrote:
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here? Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Show nested quote +It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility... It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed. Show nested quote +Drug trafficking is a very big and very serious industry. I don't think you can fault some countries for taking a harsher stance on it than others. Drug trafficking is only a very big and serious industry because of the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs would solve many of drug-related problems. Among other things, the Mafia would lose most of their funding. The benefits of waging the very costly war on drugs seem virtually negligible in comparison to all the trouble it is causing. There is little evidence that the war on drugs is even decreasing the number of drug addicts (and some against)! Regardless of what you personally think about drugs (maybe you lost your sister to heroin), I don't think you can uphold the war on drugs as some high and noble ideal that we should be willing to make sacrifices for, like conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregard for universal human rights. Show nested quote +While the argument for insanity could be made, being insane doesn't mean you're not responsible for your actions in the end. Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing. Show nested quote +I'm surprised by the amount of argument regarding this. (...) There's plenty of arguments to be made about China in regard to human rights and such, but of all of them, this one is pretty weak... So you honestly cannot understand some people would consider execution for drug trafficking a cruel and inhuman punishment? Let alone the fact that this man cannot fully be held accountable for his actions due to a mental illness?
Here are some of the countries that signed on to the UDHR:
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iraq
Iran
Liberia
Turkey
United States
China
Thailand
El Salvador
Yep. None of these countries have tortured people... I'm sure the UDHR is more than just a piece of paper... I'm not saying your sentiments are wrong or that they don't have a good moral foundation but morals are for people engaging with each other on an individual basis. When you try applying morals to systems as large as nation-states, much less international coalitions, you are going to be greatly disappointed. It's just not something the human species can relate to well enough yet.
|
On December 31 2009 22:58 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 22:25 HeartOfTofu wrote:
A person who smuggled potentially deadly drugs into a country with the intent to distribute them was caught and executed. What exactly is the big issue at hand here? Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Show nested quote +It's not the responsibility of the Chinese government to sit there and try to determine whether this guy understood the law, their job is to apply the law. Understanding the law and the risk was HIS responsibility... It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed.
Sorry, but I understand the academic consensus is that there is only a peremptory norm forbidding the execution of juvenile offenders. You can't just apply your interpretation to the Universal Declaration (and, of course, the document itself is also criticized and unilateral) and say China has to do such and such.
|
Fuck the document. Use your basic moral sense.
|
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ?
|
On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ?
Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S
|
On December 31 2009 23:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ? Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S
My criticism of it is based on moral opinions. Justice has to be just. I brought up the UDHR not to hold the Chinese government to some legal code but to explain the outrage at the decision. Some people didn't understand what all the fuss was about. If the Chinese law is unjust it should be modified so that it is. That is the moral responsibility of the Chinese government.
|
On December 31 2009 23:27 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 23:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ? Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S My criticism of it is based on moral opinions. Justice has to be just. I brought up the UDHR not to hold the Chinese government to some legal code but to explain the outrage at the decision. Some people didn't understand what all the fuss was about. If the Chinese law is unjust it should be modified so that it is. That is the moral responsibility of the Chinese government.
This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
|
As one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for schoolboys and passmen, but in the original authorities of each time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime. ~Oscar Wilde
|
Urgh, Phrujbaz, I don't want to discuss the nature of law. Suffice to say, you would benefit from reading the stuff by Hart, Dworkin etc etc
|
On December 31 2009 23:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ? Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S
While the UDHR is certainly pro-human(Would be pretty bad if it wasn't, right? ), it has a much more sound basis to be applied as law than some arbitrary rules established by a government with no real legitimation whatsoever by its people.
Also, article 3 of the UDHR("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."), seems to be overlooked here. One has to question if laws, made by a government/any sort of authority, that defy those rights, and accordinly with them the authority that made the laws, should be valid or not.
To said question there can, at least in my opinion, only be one answer: A definite no.
|
On December 31 2009 23:41 Spinfusor wrote:
Urgh, Phrujbaz, I don't want to discuss the nature of law. Suffice to say, you would benefit from reading the stuff by Hart, Dworkin etc etc
It would be awesome if we had an oracle that would always give the right answer to questions of justice. Since we don't, we have the next best thing (so far as we can tell), which is some set of laws applying our collective sense of justice. Obviously no law can codify every possibly nuance that would change the result. Because of this, and other problems, law is going to deliver justice inaccurately. That means that, some of the time, following a "good" law to the letter leads to an unjust result. We accept this as a compromise between true justice and the very important principle of "rule of law."
Despite all that, there is still a difference between a "good" law which is sometimes inaccurate and something fundamentally wrong like executing someone for drug trafficking. Such fundamentally unjust laws that disregard our universal human rights ought to be corrected, and be brought more in line with morality. Is this not a responsibility of the Chinese lawmakers?
|
On December 31 2009 15:27 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote + It's interesting to see what ordinary Chinese citizens are saying on the discussion boards. Most of these websites are state-controlled and subject to censorship but overwhelmingly the comments on those discussion sites are supportive of the Chinese government's decision. Well that just makes no sense at all!
That's not Chinese censorship of the comments, that's just Chinese people hating foreigners.
I wholeheartedly support the execution! 30 minute trial because they don't feel like wasting time on a retard! lol!
|
United States22883 Posts
If we can sift through the bullshit of Chinese nationalism and UDHR talk, can I point out that this guy was just a drug runner? A nobody.
This is not going to have an effect on drug trafficking in China because 1) it doesn't reach anyone of any importance (who likely have their hands in the government, anyways) and 2) isn't any more of a deterrent than the past treatment of drug smugglers. Death penalty or life in a Chinese prison? Is this really going to dissuade future drug smugglers any more than the previous precedent? Doubtful. All they did was kill a person with mental health issues, and drive up revenue for whoever's in charge. There's a nice, neat reason to increase prices and supply is still going to sell out.
|
Anyone actually believe he had a mental disorder and that that wasn't just hyped shit by his family + brit gov to get him out?
Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing.
He did get it mitigated, it was lethal injection instead of firing squad ¬¬
Great topic though.
|
hah pyrogenetix setting off the great firewall of china
|
On January 01 2010 00:33 Jibba wrote:
If we can sift through the bullshit of Chinese nationalism and UDHR talk, can I point out that this guy was just a drug runner? A nobody.
This is not going to have an effect on drug trafficking in China because 1) it doesn't reach anyone of any importance (who likely have their hands in the government, anyways) and 2) isn't any more of a deterrent than the past treatment of drug smugglers. Death penalty or life in a Chinese prison? Is this really going to dissuade future drug smugglers any more than the previous precedent? Doubtful. All they did was kill a person with mental health issues, and drive up revenue for whoever's in charge. There's a nice, neat reason to increase prices and supply is still going to sell out.
No one was claiming otherwise. Don't be silly.
|
A few facts:
The guy was carrying 4 kg of heroin (holy shit)
He claims he is bipolar, or he might be.
In all seriousness death is not the answer but he should be severly punished. 4kg of heroin is AAAALOOOOOT. He commited the crime in chinese territory and should pay accordingly. The nonsense about his mental condition is just to get him free for the most parts imo. If you can say that you have whatever condition every time you commit a crime, the judicial system would collapse. "Oh hi I'm depressed, that's why I had sex with 20 women while being infected with HIV"
One more thing: How english is a british man with a arabic name? He might have lived in England only for a year or whatever. (I didn't read the last paragraphs of the article, so if I'm a dumbass kill me)
|
The funny thing is, I don't think the drug dealer would have complained about the laws in China before he got caught and executed. He probably knew the risks, and made a reasonable determination that more risk equals more profit. There are plenty of drug dealers getting rich off of China's laws.
Liberalize the drug laws and China becomes just another Western country, with lower profit margins for dealing. Who are you middle class kids with nice families to take away a profit making opportunity from people who've been disadvantaged and poor all their lives? All you're trying to do with your liberal drug legalization campaign is to let huge corporations like CVS, Rite Aid, or Walgreens take over the drug industry.
This is just another example of the rich and middle class imposing their system on the poor to keep them down, in the guise of "human rights" and "morality." I hope you are all proud of yourselves, it takes a lot of balls to kick a man when he's down.
|
On December 31 2009 19:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 18:33 pyrogenetix wrote:
What's This?
ANOTHER China thread?
ANOTHER COMMUNIST CHINA has NO HUMAN RIGHTS thread?
CHINA RED COMMUNIST MAO ZE DONG WAS AN IDIOT ALL CHINESE ARE RUDE AND EAT DOG MEAT NO ONE IN CHINA CAN VOTE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH NEWS IS CENSORED BOOKS ARE BANNED SECRET NUKES SELLING WEAPONS TO SUDAN LEAD PAINT CHILD LABOUR SWEAT SHOPS LAZER BEAMS FLASHING LIGHTS FAKE ROLEXES ANIMAL CRUELTY BIGGEST POLLUTION CAUSE LONG WORKING HOURS MORE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS THAN THE UNITED STATES
pm me if I forgot anything. You forget that we also eat cat meat~!
One child policy. Plotting a NWO of Chinese hegemony. Go to Ivy Leagues so we can steal US corporate secrets. Steal other people's jobs. Overpopulate the world (despite the one child policy). Eat all endangered species. Married to Rupert Murdoch and millions of other rich white men around the world.
|
On January 01 2010 03:11 Slow Motion wrote:
The funny thing is, I don't think the drug dealer would have complained about the laws in China before he got caught and executed. He probably knew the risks, and made a reasonable determination that more risk equals more profit. There are plenty of drug dealers getting rich off of China's laws.
This man speaks the truth
This whole debacle is a farce.
|
He'll never make that mistake again.
+ Show Spoiler +It really is awful that China executes so many people. But this is something THE ENTIRE WORLD knows about. What the fuck do you think is going to happen waltzing into a country like China with drugs like that? The man had it coming to him. Obviously most countries wouldn't be as harsh, and is probably too harsh a punishment... but the fact is China is gonna kill you.
|
lol, bring drugs into china? and get caught?
tough shit
|
On December 31 2009 22:58 Phrujbaz wrote:
Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I don't even know if I should respond to this since you seem to be putting heroine on the same platform as cigarettes and alcohol, but I guess I'll go ahead. Is an execution warranted? I don't know. I suppose it depends on where you are. Like I said, different parts of the world look at and treat different crimes differently. My point was that this person wasn't innocent by any means and it was his own responsibility to identify and decide whether or not to assume the risks that he did. He assumed those risks, made a wager, lost, and now he paid for it with his life. It's not as if they executed someone trying to bring aid to people...
It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed.
Yes, insanity could be taken into account to mitigate punishments and in this case it seems clear that they simply didn't believe that he was insane. Insanity defenses really only work when the courts believe that you're insane. The same applies here in the USA. People don't always get to plead insanity and even when they do, it doesn't always work. As for whether the death penalty is "cruel, inhuman, or degrading", that's subject to personal opinion. Some people might see eating dogs as "cruel" or "inhuman", but in other parts of the world, it's a pretty normal thing.
Drug trafficking is only a very big and serious industry because of the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs would solve many of drug-related problems. Among other things, the Mafia would lose most of their funding. The benefits of waging the very costly war on drugs seem virtually negligible in comparison to all the trouble it is causing. There is little evidence that the war on drugs is even decreasing the number of drug addicts (and some against)!
This isn't a case of someone being put to death for carrying around an ounce of marijuana so if you want to start arguing about the legalization of that substance, please don't. Have you ever seen a person addicted to heroine or cocaine? I have and believe me, they're illegal for a very good reason. If you honestly believe legalizing heroine would be better for the world, you are either really stupid or really ignorant.
Regardless of what you personally think about drugs (maybe you lost your sister to heroin), I don't think you can uphold the war on drugs as some high and noble ideal that we should be willing to make sacrifices for, like conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregard for universal human rights.
No, I didn't lose anyone to heroine, but I've seen what it can do to people first-hand. Have you? I'm not going to say that we need to start conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregards for "universal human rights" (whatever that means), but I do believe fighting to prevent the spread of destructive substances can certainly be upheld as a noble ideal. But it seems to me that you'd rather accept the spread of them so I'm sure we won't agree on that. The legalization and proliferation of drugs seems like it'll be all fine and fun, but that's honesty a very short-sighted view of things.
On a personal note, I really don't have a problem with the legalization of marijuana if that's where you're trying to go with this simply because we already have tobacco and alcohol legalized and regulated, both of which seem to be more damaging than marijuana anyway. But under no circumstance can I believe that legalizing more damaging drugs such as cocaine or heroine will be good for society.
Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing.
Personally I believe he should have been jailed rather than executed either way and if it were up to me, I would have done so. However, I'm not going to shed a tear for him because someone else felt differently. Obviously they didn't believe that he was insane or they didn't believe that it was a mitigating factor. It's quite difficult to come to any conclusions on our part with the limited information we're given so I'm not going to presume to judge them for their decision.
So you honestly cannot understand some people would consider execution for drug trafficking a cruel and inhuman punishment? Let alone the fact that this man cannot fully be held accountable for his actions due to a mental illness?
I can certainly understand that some people believe that execution is always a "cruel and inhuman" punishment regardless of the crime and I can also understand that many people believe that it might be excessive for this particular one. However, you need to understand that not everyone sees things the way you do or holds the same standards in regard to what is "cruel and inhuman" and what "universal human rights" actually means. I find it incredibly pretentious and condescending for you to sit there and blast a country just because it doesn't happen to uphold your own personal values as to what is morally right or wrong. And yes, your argument is purely a moral one in the end.
It's easy for us to sit around and spout out words like "universal human rights", but the reality is that these words have no meaning. Or rather I should say, they have a different meaning all across the globe depending on who you speak with. Human beings have no more intrinsic rights than the average animal. The fact is that we're not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These concepts are all relatively new creations in human history so no, they are not "basic" or "universal" in any way. They are concepts that we have fabricated by consensus and popular demand in Western society and have subsequently imposed on the rest of the world. However, because they are ultimately fabricated concepts rather than intrinsic ones, they are subject to interpretation by each society. Freedoms and rights are things to be appreciated not because they are things we are entitled to, but because they are things that we aren't. Do I enjoy my freedom in America? Sure, but I won't take that experience as an invitation to dictate to the rest of the world how they should live and operate. Isn't a lack of respect for the sovereignty of other nations to govern themselves exactly the kind of problem that got us into all of our current messes in the first place?
|
But... but China!
Don't... don't you get it? They're communists.
|
HeartOfTofu makes some pretty good points.
|
HeartOfTofu that was really good writing.
|
Human rights are intrinsic to every human being, wherever born. Rights cannot be "imposed" on societies, they can simply be respected or not respected, and our universal human rights are respected in various degrees across the globe. Even a "free" country such as the United States or The Netherlands doesn't always respect these human rights.
I don't believe the "sovereignty" of the Chinese government licenses it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the Chinese people, nor does the "sovereignty" of the United States government license it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the US people (nor on people overseas).
In the end, governments are just a bunch of individuals that happen to run the country, not some sort of collective consciousness that can sacrifice rights and liberties on behalf of the people. They have a responsibility to respect the liberties and human rights of the individuals entrusted to them.
Does that mean I think we should load up our bombers and tanks and march into China to make sure they are living by our standards? Hell no. It is the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure the Chinese laws are just, not the responsibility of the US government. Can the international community observe what is happening in China with horror and outrage? Yes. Should the Chinese government start respecting human rights? Yes.
On your other points, I guess we are largely in agreement. Yes heroine is a more severe drug than marijuana. Yes heroine is damaging to people's lives, and their families and loved ones. Yes, if you agree with the concept of the war on drugs, it makes more sense to crash down on heroine than marijuana. Yes 4kg of heroine is a lot. Yes, the drug runner knew (or should have known) the law and knew (or should have known) the risks. Yes, it has to remain the court's decision whether or not the man can plead insanity. No, I don't approve of spreading heroine, I hate drug dealers about as much as I hate the war on drugs. I won't shed a tear for this man.
I am not saying this particular guy shouldn't be held accountable to Chinese law, I am merely saying the law that says you have to execute people that carry drugs around is cruel and inhuman, and should be brought into accordance with our universal human rights. Sovereignty of the Chinese government simply means that they are the ones accountable for such "human rights missteps", and they are the ones who have to do something about it.
It's all perfectly right and good to make some fuss about this and to be outraged.
|
On January 01 2010 06:37 Phrujbaz wrote:
Human rights are intrinsic to every human being, wherever born. Rights cannot be "imposed" on societies, they can simply be respected or not respected, and our universal human rights are respected in various degrees across the globe. Even a "free" country such as the United States or The Netherlands doesn't always respect these human rights.
I don't believe the "sovereignty" of the Chinese government licenses it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the Chinese people, nor does the "sovereignty" of the United States government license it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the US people (nor on people overseas).
In the end, governments are just a bunch of individuals that happen to run the country, not some sort of collective consciousness that can sacrifice rights and liberties on behalf of the people. They have a responsibility to respect the liberties and human rights of the individuals entrusted to them.
Does that mean I think we should load up our bombers and tanks and march into China to make sure they are living by our standards? Hell no. It is the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure the Chinese laws are just, not the responsibility of the US government. Can the international community observe what is happening in China with horror and outrage? Yes. Should the Chinese government start respecting human rights? Yes.
On your other points, I guess we are largely in agreement. Yes heroine is a more severe drug than marijuana. Yes heroine is damaging to people's lives, and their families and loved ones. Yes, if you agree with the concept of the war on drugs, it makes more sense to crash down on heroine than marijuana. Yes 4kg of heroine is a lot. Yes, the drug runner knew (or should have known) the law and knew (or should have known) the risks. Yes, it has to remain the court's decision whether or not the man can plead insanity. No, I don't approve of spreading heroine, I hate drug dealers about as much as I hate the war on drugs. I won't shed a tear for this man.
I am not saying this particular guy shouldn't be held accountable to Chinese law, I am merely saying the law that says you have to execute people that carry drugs around is cruel and inhuman, and should be brought into accordance with our universal human rights. Sovereignty of the Chinese government simply means that they are the ones accountable for such "human rights missteps", and they are the ones who have to do something about it.
It's all perfectly right and good to make some fuss about this and to be outraged.
Lol at pulling shit straight out of your ass.
Death penalty is awesome and super duper humane.
|
I think the whole debate about whether the death penalty was warranted or not is meaningless because what matters in the end is not the international community's decision regarding morally correct punishment, but rather Chinese law (obviously). Just because every other nation condemns this execution isn't changing the fact that if you waltz into China with 4 kilos of banned drugs you're fucked.
No one here (pretty much) is saying that there isn't a less severe (and more suitable) punishment for a man who apparently has mental problems that could be applied in this case, but Chinese culture is very different from Western culture in this aspect; if you've done something wrong, you die. Even if it was a Chinese man who was caught smuggling heroin, the Chinese public would also rally behind the judicial system's decision to execute.
|
God administers the death penalty to everyone in the end. So much for our right to life.
Also, unless you can demonstrate to me where Chinese soldiers, say, invaded a city, killed ten million Chinese civilians, forced tens of thousands of women into sexual slavery and raped tens of thousands of others, raped young girls and then killed them, raped teenaged girls to death, forced fathers to rape their daughters, or impaled babies on bayonets, you should probably stop comparing modern China to 1930's Japan. Just saying.
|
On January 01 2010 06:51 EmeraldSparks wrote:
God administers the death penalty to everyone in the end. So much for our right to life.
Also, unless you can demonstrate to me where Chinese soldiers, say, invaded a city, killed ten million Chinese civilians, forced tens of thousands of women into sexual slavery and raped tens of thousands of others, raped young girls and then killed them, raped teenaged girls to death, forced fathers to rape their daughters, or impaled babies on bayonets, you should probably stop comparing modern China to 1930's Japan. Just saying.
Actually your body just shuts down from old age but yea..the rest of your post has a point.
|
Phrujbaz you need to directly answer HeartOfTofu's attack on the intrinsic nature of universal human rights if you want to persuasively represent your position.
On January 01 2010 03:57 HeartOfTofu wrote:
The fact is that we're not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These concepts are all relatively new creations in human history so no, they are not "basic" or "universal" in any way. They are concepts that we have fabricated by consensus and popular demand in Western society and have subsequently imposed on the rest of the world.
You need to prove, or offer a proof, that this is not the case, that these rights somehow exist independent of humanity. That's all I'm going to say here.
Regarding people who espouse that strict drug laws only cause higher profit margins for suppliers, I'd like to point out a few more factors.
1.) Risk is a barrier to entry. Yes, there will always be daredevils willing to accept the risk and invest here, but the fact is in every industry including this one, high risk dissuades new entrants. This means fewer people involved in the industry. Even if the monetary size of the industry remains huge, this means that every time people are caught, the industry takes higher damage. Since China's government optimally wants the industry gone, generating as much risk as possible is a wise move.
2.) Lower risks for suppliers will not mitigate heroin's damage to the consumers.
a.) Some wealthy individuals will engage in this recreation, but there good reasons for suppliers to market to non-wealthy individuals as well. They are less educated and wise of the health risks, and if they don't hold high organizational positions in the government or corporate worlds, they will be under less scrutiny for this type of recreation.
b.) Even if suppliers pass on the savings to the consumers, non-wealthy individuals in China are poor. Shipping and manufacturing costs still come into play, even if this were a completely legal industry. A family in poverty regardless of where they are in the globe does not have the means to consistently fund the shipping and manufacturing of heroin.
c.) Suppliers have no reason to pass on the savings to consumers when they are addicted. Businesses only do this to drive demand. Best business practices include getting as much money out of consumers as they are willing to pay. Addicted consumers are willing to pay as much as they have, since their choice mechanisms are so impaired. They will lose all their money to recreation, resulting in family inviability.
|
I agree with people who support highest punishment for drugs. Pretending to be mentally ill person is usual for anyone who faces death sentence (killers do that all the time).
For emotionally disturbed people like Akmal Shaikh, the experience of imprisonment can be highly traumatic
How about 4kg of heroin being traumatic for emotionally sound person even. Drugs kill people btw. And four kilos makes it around ~$250 000+ which is worth of risking your life.
P.S.Light and heavy drugs is a marketing tool invented by drug dealers
|
United States13896 Posts
The story presented by the British media does present a case of someone who sounds like he she was bipolar and in a severe manic state. People suffering from extreme mania lack any semblance of sound judgment and do most everything on blind impulses. Consequences don't enter the picture, they just feel indestructible and act accordingly. If these reports are true it's incredibly unfortunate that this man's life got caught up in this when he was not making rational choices for himself.
The part of the story that I'm hazy on is where his family was at the time he decided to travel to China in pursuit of his dream to be a pop star or whatever. Where were they while he was taking this obviously insane risk with his own life, and why didn't they interfere with it? If he was struggling with bipolar disorder, this man needed people around him who cared to tell him when things needed to stop.
They can't just point the finger at chinese laws and complain about them a violation of human rights. To some extent they themselves failed to properly care for their family member, and they need to own up to that.
|
Why is everyone spelling it "heroine"?
Heroine is a female hero, heroin is a drug refined from opium..
|
On December 31 2009 23:57 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 23:41 Spinfusor wrote:
Urgh, Phrujbaz, I don't want to discuss the nature of law. Suffice to say, you would benefit from reading the stuff by Hart, Dworkin etc etc It would be awesome if we had an oracle that would always give the right answer to questions of justice. Since we don't, we have the next best thing (so far as we can tell), which is some set of laws applying our collective sense of justice. Obviously no law can codify every possibly nuance that would change the result. Because of this, and other problems, law is going to deliver justice inaccurately. That means that, some of the time, following a "good" law to the letter leads to an unjust result. We accept this as a compromise between true justice and the very important principle of "rule of law." Despite all that, there is still a difference between a "good" law which is sometimes inaccurate and something fundamentally wrong like executing someone for drug trafficking. Such fundamentally unjust laws that disregard our universal human rights ought to be corrected, and be brought more in line with morality. Is this not a responsibility of the Chinese lawmakers?
Even if your ideas had practical merit, the death penalty is not exactly unpopular. 60% of people live in capital punishment countries, and China certainly > EU in population (and whereas accounts suggest a massive majority of people support capital punishment, the EU is much more even). Hell, a quick Google search, shows that capital punishment is popular with the majority in Britain.
So, Phrujbaz, should we be implementing capital punishment for murder in all countries now?
On January 01 2010 08:36 p4NDemik wrote:
The part of the story that I'm hazy on is where his family was at the time he decided to travel to China in pursuit of his dream to be a pop star or whatever. Where were they while he was taking this obviously insane risk with his own life, and why didn't they interfere with it? If he was struggling with bipolar disorder, this man needed people around him who cared to tell him when things needed to stop.
They can't just point the finger at chinese laws and complain about them a violation of human rights. To some extent they themselves failed to properly care for their family member, and they need to own up to that.
I'd just add that there also isn't a shred of prior medical evidence available (and I believe this is the crux of why the court declined a psychological evaluation).
|
On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's.
You made that sounded like Japan is the complete opposite but we can go on and list the millions things that are wrong and feudal about your country.
Modern China only opened its gates to the world 20 years ago. I wonder how long it took Japan to rise from the ashses and rabbles of WWII?
Systems of Law is not subjective to nationality. Death penalty for heroine smugglers has being old news for a while now.
Before you say that the law is crap, let's not forget the cases of Japanese justice systems and the foreign victims not getting any considerations at all. Like the prosecution will not even start the case. How about that Cannibal Japanese guy who ate a french girl and is still alive and go on TV shows in Japan?
|
Hard to tell how much this is about China trying to send a message. Considerable evidence was given to them about the man's mental state which was ignored so they've not done their image any favours by applying an inhumane penalty (I don't dispute that it's a serious crime in the slightest) to someone who's potentially mentally incompetent. It feels on a similar level to Iran's hilariously naive comment about 'punching London in the face'. If China continues to throw its weight around as it did to scupper the Copenhagen agreement then we will see a very tense 21st century.
|
Yes claim insanity when trying to smuggle that amount of drugs, we've heard that one before. What's next? the demons told me to do it claim?
|
On January 01 2010 06:37 Phrujbaz wrote:
Human rights are intrinsic to every human being, wherever born. Rights cannot be "imposed" on societies, they can simply be respected or not respected, and our universal human rights are respected in various degrees across the globe. Even a "free" country such as the United States or The Netherlands doesn't always respect these human rights.
I don't believe the "sovereignty" of the Chinese government licenses it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the Chinese people, nor does the "sovereignty" of the United States government license it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the US people (nor on people overseas).
In the end, governments are just a bunch of individuals that happen to run the country, not some sort of collective consciousness that can sacrifice rights and liberties on behalf of the people. They have a responsibility to respect the liberties and human rights of the individuals entrusted to them.
Does that mean I think we should load up our bombers and tanks and march into China to make sure they are living by our standards? Hell no. It is the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure the Chinese laws are just, not the responsibility of the US government. Can the international community observe what is happening in China with horror and outrage? Yes. Should the Chinese government start respecting human rights? Yes.
On your other points, I guess we are largely in agreement. Yes heroine is a more severe drug than marijuana. Yes heroine is damaging to people's lives, and their families and loved ones. Yes, if you agree with the concept of the war on drugs, it makes more sense to crash down on heroine than marijuana. Yes 4kg of heroine is a lot. Yes, the drug runner knew (or should have known) the law and knew (or should have known) the risks. Yes, it has to remain the court's decision whether or not the man can plead insanity. No, I don't approve of spreading heroine, I hate drug dealers about as much as I hate the war on drugs. I won't shed a tear for this man.
I am not saying this particular guy shouldn't be held accountable to Chinese law, I am merely saying the law that says you have to execute people that carry drugs around is cruel and inhuman, and should be brought into accordance with our universal human rights. Sovereignty of the Chinese government simply means that they are the ones accountable for such "human rights missteps", and they are the ones who have to do something about it.
It's all perfectly right and good to make some fuss about this and to be outraged.
Universal implies everyone agrees on the issue.
When a country with 1/6th of the world population doesn't agree on the issue, it's no longer a "universal" consensus. Rather, these are some ideas that a random group of Euros got together and decided sounded good and over time convinced some other Euros that it was tight. Then they fought a bunch of wars to try to bludgeon the people who disagreed with them into agreeing. See how similar this process is to sovereign rights? Amazing!
After they had those ideological scuffles known as revolutions, the winning side coined their ideas as "universal" and tried to impose it on the rest of the world. If you can't see the hypocrisy here, then you probably haven't earned the right to be outraged or patronizing to any government.
There was no "collective consciousness" that determined universal rights. Hence why you don't have a majority of people, even on this rather liberal and Western-educated forum, agreeing with you.
|
On January 01 2010 08:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Why is everyone spelling it "heroine"?
Heroine is a female hero, heroin is a drug refined from opium..
We got a lot of misogynists on the forum. It's a sad state of affairs . Women get blamed for everything QQ!
|
On January 01 2010 10:07 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's. You made that sounded like Japan is the complete opposite but we can go on and list the millions things that are wrong and feudal about your country. Modern China only opened its gates to the world 20 years ago. I wonder how long it took Japan to rise from the ashses and rabbles of WWII? Systems of Law is not subjective to nationality. Death penalty for heroine smugglers has being old news for a while now. Before you say that the law is crap, let's not forget the cases of Japanese justice systems and the foreign victims not getting any considerations at all. Like the prosecution will not even start the case. How about that Cannibal Japanese guy who ate a french girl and is still alive and go on TV shows in Japan?
Actually it was a dutch girl, but it was in france.
It's actually a hilarious parallel of this story. That cannical japanese guy got some super top lawyers and was found to be legally insane. Fastforward a couple of years when he's back in Japan and he's evaluated to be completely sane - it was all an act to get out of his murder crime. They should've just executed him.
Just like this drug mule. Not bipolar, just full of shit. And dead, now.
|
On January 01 2010 10:31 psion0011 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 10:07 haduken wrote:On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote:On December 31 2009 20:39 T.O.P. wrote:On December 31 2009 20:25 Robinsa wrote:
I dont care much for the guy or if they kill him, but whats in teresting here is the "Chinese" reaction with people defending the decision iin blind fate. If there is ANYTHING china shou ld have learned in the past 70 years its to not trust the state. Im amazed at how well propaganda can work if you start it when people are young enough. Come on now, nationalism happens in every country. True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's. You made that sounded like Japan is the complete opposite but we can go on and list the millions things that are wrong and feudal about your country. Modern China only opened its gates to the world 20 years ago. I wonder how long it took Japan to rise from the ashses and rabbles of WWII? Systems of Law is not subjective to nationality. Death penalty for heroine smugglers has being old news for a while now. Before you say that the law is crap, let's not forget the cases of Japanese justice systems and the foreign victims not getting any considerations at all. Like the prosecution will not even start the case. How about that Cannibal Japanese guy who ate a french girl and is still alive and go on TV shows in Japan? Actually it was a dutch girl, but it was in france. It's actually a hilarious parallel of this story. That cannical japanese guy got some super top lawyers and was found to be legally insane. Fastforward a couple of years when he's back in Japan and he's evaluated to be completely sane - it was all an act to get out of his murder crime. They should've just executed him. Just like this drug mule. Not bipolar, just full of shit. And dead, now.
Not to completely derail the thread, but that story disgusts me to no end. The fact that he's now a minor celebrity there makes me lose a considerable amount of faith in humanity.
|
On December 31 2009 15:12 Athos wrote:
As much as I would love to think this is China getting revenge for the Opium wars, I just don't see it. This guy is just a fucking moran. The End.
I agree with what you said.. but sorry I couldn't give up the opportunity to post this picture with your sentence there.. lol...
|
Execution over drugs is quite possibly the biggest over reactive punishment I've ever heard of. Fuck off China.
edit -- also, Heartoftofu, there's nothing wrong with moral normativity. Despite it being a "moral" argument, there's a certain degree of civility that tends to be more reasonable than others. Obviously cavemen had fewer, or, as you say, "different" morals to most of modern culture, but societal advances tends towards The Golden Rule (treat other as you would be treated). Death for drugs isn't, by any stretch, logical, reasonable, or, in moral context, anything less than barbaric.
You can rationalize barbarism as just "different culture." But when it's at the ill-being of literally over a billion people then it's hard to just pass it over as a cultural difference.
There's almost never justification to end a non threatening criminal's life because, if you put anyone else in the world in that situation, they too would value their own life over drugs. Death is not a punishment, it's just mob mentality seeking revenge.
|
On January 01 2010 11:07 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Execution over drugs is quite possibly the biggest over reactive punishment I've ever heard of. Fuck off China.
More people would of been screwed over if those drugs were successfully smuggled. It's more of a lesson to future smugglers. Sorta like the death penalty in usa but a bit more aggresive
|
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.
It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like.
|
On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.
It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like.
Exactly, if it doesn't exist then I guess to them it's just one more smuggler that's off the face of the planet. Same goes for murder and anything else they execute. The only one angry here is you, since you clearly don't understand how many people 4kg of heroin would fuck over for you're own personal gains. The laws are there, if you don't obey you die it's really that simple.
|
One less jaywalker off the face of the planet.
There's no line to draw with killing. You don't do it, there's no reason to do it.
this isn't my benefit. I've never touched an illegal drug and hopefully never will. This is appealing to the sense of reason in folks to understand that capital punishment has no effect over imprisonment other than killing them.
It MAY cut costs in China because they're much quicker to execute than America (The cost is negligible here because it's a long drawn out complicated process), but government equating human life to their changepurse is literally precedent for genocide.
edit: and frankly, are you naive enough to think that that 4KG of Heroin never making it to the market will somehow curb heroin abuse? As has been said, heroin addicts are basically the absolute in desperation to get their high. A drop in the bucket won't do anything. If china is so serious about the drug game to murder a man for 4KGs of Heroin then they should be going for mass executions against drug trafficking areas.
They don't because drug culture is profitable. They just caught one and like to play angry and appease the senseless masses.
|
On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.
It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like. And whats wrong that? Absolutely nothing!
|
On January 01 2010 11:34 yhnmk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.
It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like. And whats wrong that? Absolutely nothing!
If there's nothing wrong with mob mentality decreeing consequences then there is absolutely no reason to have any judicial process.
|
On January 01 2010 11:35 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:34 yhnmk wrote:On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.
It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like. And whats wrong that? Absolutely nothing! If there's nothing wrong with mob mentality decreeing consequences then there is absolutely no reason to have any judicial process. Its not mob mentality decreeing consequences, its the opinion of society supporting existing legal penalties.
edit: lmao and the judicial process is to determine guilt and the appropriate response. Just because you dont see death penalty as an appropriate response doesn't mean you cant spout off retarded shit like the above.
|
On January 01 2010 11:29 TwoToneTerran wrote:
One less jaywalker off the face of the planet.
There's no line to draw with killing. You don't do it, there's no reason to do it.
this isn't my benefit. I've never touched an illegal drug and hopefully never will. This is appealing to the sense of reason in folks to understand that capital punishment has no effect over imprisonment other than killing them.
It MAY cut costs in China because they're much quicker to execute than America (The cost is negligible here because it's a long drawn out complicated process), but government equating human life to their changepurse is literally precedent for genocide.
I meant the benefit of the smuggler who would probably receive a nice chunk of money after he's successful. Now you have hundreds of people addicted to the drug with their lives completely ruined and eventually left to die because a. it either costs too much to get treatment or b. nobody gives a shit. it's so obvious that it's the right thing to do when you look at it from cost/benefit analysis.
Edit: from you're updated edit, so suddenly it's ok to commit mass murders of drug trafficking areas? contradict yourself much? trust me they are doing their best eliminating these guys one by one, doing that would just cause an uproar from people like you.
|
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.
If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again.
On January 01 2010 11:38 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:29 TwoToneTerran wrote:
One less jaywalker off the face of the planet.
There's no line to draw with killing. You don't do it, there's no reason to do it.
this isn't my benefit. I've never touched an illegal drug and hopefully never will. This is appealing to the sense of reason in folks to understand that capital punishment has no effect over imprisonment other than killing them.
It MAY cut costs in China because they're much quicker to execute than America (The cost is negligible here because it's a long drawn out complicated process), but government equating human life to their changepurse is literally precedent for genocide. I meant the benefit of the smuggler who would probably receive a nice chunk of money after he's successful. Now you have hundreds of people addicted to the drug with their lives completely ruined and eventually left to die because a. it either costs too much to get treatment or b. nobody gives a shit. it's so obvious that it's the right thing to do when you look at it from cost/benefit analysis
Like I said above, one drug trafficker means nothing to the heroin addicted masses. If you want to solve the problem of drugs with force then it shouldn't be a pick and choose execution by luck basis. It should be a consistent and murderous raid against drug traffic. The reason it's not is because there are far too many wealthy people invested in the drug trade and there's no way a government would willingly take away money from their nation to support their tentative morals.
|
On January 01 2010 11:39 TwoToneTerran wrote:
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.
If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again. lol, you can want revenge and expect extremely harsh punishments but still do it in a calculated and fair manner. For example: The American death penalty. :O
it completely syncs up with law. Law aint just about rehabilitation or prevention, it is also about punishment. Its been like that for centuries across the globe. And many philosophers justified the death penalty on the basis of revenge alone.
|
On January 01 2010 11:41 yhnmk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:39 TwoToneTerran wrote:
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.
If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again. lol, you can want revenge and expect extremely harsh punishments but still do it in a calculated and fair manner. For example: The American death penalty. :O it completely syncs up with law. Law aint just about rehabilitation or prevention, it is also about punishment. Its been like that for centuries across the globe. And many philosophers justified the death penalty on the basis of revenge alone.
It's not punishment. Punishment is meant to teach a lesson. Imprisoning a thief for ten years is punishment because he can learn from the consequence of his action. There's no learning from being killed.
Also, don't get me started on the American Death Penalty. If you want a less 'impassioned' reason against the death penalty, there should be no death penalty because there's no infallible court system to prove 100% innocence and guilt. No matter how hard you try, you will end up killing innocent people just like how we have imprisoned innocent people. State sanctioned murder is no less abhorrent then personally committed murder. By its own logic, all supporters should be put to death for being absolutely involved in cold blooded murder once an innocent man has been falsely found guilty.
But that's no the case. Why? Because it's the antithesis of law. there's no system for fallibility in the death penalty short of not killing the convict off the bat so he may later be absolved.
It's dumb, senseless, and does nothing that imprisonment wouldn't besides sate subconscious bloodlust.
|
On January 01 2010 11:45 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:41 yhnmk wrote:On January 01 2010 11:39 TwoToneTerran wrote:
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.
If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again. lol, you can want revenge and expect extremely harsh punishments but still do it in a calculated and fair manner. For example: The American death penalty. :O it completely syncs up with law. Law aint just about rehabilitation or prevention, it is also about punishment. Its been like that for centuries across the globe. And many philosophers justified the death penalty on the basis of revenge alone. It's not punishment. Punishment is meant to teach a lesson. Imprisoning a thief for ten years is punishment because he can learn from the consequence of his action. There's no learning from being killed. Also, don't get me started on the American Death Penalty. If you want a less 'impassioned' reason against the death penalty, there should be no death penalty because there's no infallible court system to prove 100% innocence and guilt. No matter how hard you try, you will end up killing innocent people just like how we have imprisoned innocent people. State sanctioned murder is no less abhorrent then personally committed murder. By its own logic, all supporters should be put to death for being absolutely involved in cold blooded murder once an innocent man has been falsely found guilty. But that's no the case. Why? Because it's the antithesis of law. there's no system for fallibility in the death penalty short of not killing the convict off the bat so he may later be absolved. It's dumb, senseless, and does nothing that imprisonment wouldn't besides sate subconscious bloodlust. Ugh I hate debating on tl, I dont know how to splice the quote system like I would on either sites, so ill just number my points.
1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society.
2) I don't care if theres a degree of error. The death of a few innocents is acceptable if we put down numerous mass murderers, or alternatively, those that may be repeat offenders in murder, rape, etc.
2 b) State sanctioned murder is not murder. You mean state sanctioned killing. And yes, state sanctioned killing is vastly less abhorrent to the alternative. It is not anarchistic, for one. It is directed in a very precise manner, as precise as is humanely possible, at someone who hurts society as a whole through their actions. Obviously by its own logic, state sanctioned murder doesn't call for executing people who are completely within the bounds of law and do nothing overtly negative to society. Thats just ridiculous and an absolutely terrible argument. And above all, it is the enforcement of law, which is a reflection of the morality and opinions of a society, and therefore in its own end, is a justification.
3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less.
|
Rabid Chinese Nationalism on TL is a funny thing.
You'd never catch anything like this for the US or a European country on here, where people defend idiotic laws and ugly totalitarian govt. For example, the drug laws in America are supposed to be too harsh... lol.
Strange phenomenon.
|
|
|
On January 01 2010 11:57 FieryBalrog wrote:
Rabid Chinese Nationalism on TL is a funny thing.
You'd never catch anything like this for the US or a European country on here, where people defend idiotic laws and ugly totalitarian govt. For example, the drug laws in America are supposed to be too harsh... lol.
Strange phenomenon.
Sorry to single you out, I just want to voice my annoyance at posts citing "Rabid Chinese Nationalism" when said phenomenon is not running rampant in at least this thread. Look at the dozen posts before yours: all we have here is a generic row over the death penalty. It is not painted with nationalistic overtones in any way. Please refrain from blanket assumptions regarding discussion in threads dealing with China. Obviously there are and will be several cases where evidence supports this assumption, but when this isn't the case, the voiced assumptions amount to mere eyesores.
Honestly, I've witnessed more Chinese nationalism in threads concerning F91, yet this thread somehow elicits more complaints when the nationalism in it is comparatively mild.
|
On January 01 2010 11:57 FieryBalrog wrote:
Rabid Chinese Nationalism on TL is a funny thing.
You'd never catch anything like this for the US or a European country on here, where people defend idiotic laws and ugly totalitarian govt. For example, the drug laws in America are supposed to be too harsh... lol.
Strange phenomenon.
What do you expect from the op anyway? it's obviously a good opportunity to china bash, I can pull up a news article about civilians dying in iraq and Afghanistan make a thread about it and see tons of patriotic TL members supporting usa as well. Would you like to see?
|
On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.
It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like.
But it does provide some leverage in a plea bargain negotiation. It's not useless.
|
On January 01 2010 11:56 yhnmk wrote:
1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society.
Then it is not punishment. Do not call it punishment, do not pretend it is punishment. The Death Penalty has nothing to do with punishment and plays no supported factor in deterrence. It is, plain and simple, killing. You may justify it however you please. Whether it be "lessening a burden" on society, or doing away with the trash. Every single reason not related to Law is the exact same reason any other killer in the world could use, and by your logic, would be justified.
2) I don't care if theres a degree of error. The death of a few innocents is acceptable if we put down numerous mass murderers, or alternatively, those that may be repeat offenders in murder, rape, etc.
This is disgusting. You know what else prevents criminals from committing crime again? High security imprisonment. Only this way you, at the very least, will never kill an innocent person because you think it's for the greater good. It is not for a senseless populace to decide what's for the greater good, because their arguments lack any basis of commonality or reason.
2 b) State sanctioned murder is not murder. You mean state sanctioned killing. And yes, state sanctioned killing is vastly less abhorrent to the alternative. It is not anarchistic, for one. It is directed in a very precise manner, as precise as is humanely possible, at someone who hurts society as a whole through their actions.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22945.php
Capital Punishment has never, ever been humane. And that's not even a good reason for it. Should a murderer be slightly more absolved if he kills someone quickly and painlessly? A shotgun to the head is more humane to the victim than current Capital Punishment. It's just messier and the average member of the mob doesn't like the gore because it easily reminds them of the actual atrocity they're committing. Ask anyone who has actually seen the death penalty in exercise, they rationalize it as less evil because it's "like they're going to sleep." The way people are killed is not for the comfort of the supposed criminal, but for the comfort of those who see and hear about it.
Obviously by its own logic, state sanctioned murder doesn't call for executing people who are completely within the bounds of law and do nothing overtly negative to society. Thats just ridiculous and an absolutely terrible argument. And above all, it is the enforcement of law, which is a reflection of the morality and opinions of a society, and therefore in its own end, is a justification.
Wrong. The state completely realizes that the court system is fallible -- if it did not then there would be no such thing as absolving of crimes. As a matter of fact, there was a program that recently absolved over a HUNDRED innocents on death row with recent advances in DNA technology.
That aside, moral reflection of society means bupkiss. Society believes those responsible for heinous crimes be put to death. That is a pure and unadulterated reflection, but it in and of itself is a crude statement derived from passion. It fails to realize that the support of society is what causes innocent deaths, and by its own laws, those responsible for cold blooded, pre meditated Murder should themselves be put to death. It's a natural paradox in the idea of the death penalty that is only overcome by having a perfect justice system (Human nature begets that there's no such thing as perfection, thus why it's a paradox and not just a sad dilemma).
If you really believe that killing more innocents than any serial killer is justifiable because we get to 'get rid of' people we already have imprisoned then you should be lining yourself up for the injection. That's the reflection of society's morals. It's just never brought up because society does not think deeply enough about the death penalty to wage this on its mind sometimes, because there's no deep process to "Kill bad person."
3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less.
Repeat offenders is a problem, but that's because the justice system IS flawed. It deigns out relatively light punishments for terrible crimes, which I agree should not happen. Life imprisonment for anything that can't risk having a repeat offense (Heinous murder, Rape, etc) removes the problem of repeat offenders without killing innocents who are falsely imprisoned.
It truly saddens me that there is overly lax justice, but that's no excuse for capital punishment when there is a viable alternative that doesn't risk the lives of innocents. If Capital Punishment were not allowed, anyone who WOULD have received capital punishment would've gotten life in prison with no parole, as well.
|
On January 01 2010 11:56 yhnmk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:45 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 01 2010 11:41 yhnmk wrote:On January 01 2010 11:39 TwoToneTerran wrote:
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.
If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again. lol, you can want revenge and expect extremely harsh punishments but still do it in a calculated and fair manner. For example: The American death penalty. :O it completely syncs up with law. Law aint just about rehabilitation or prevention, it is also about punishment. Its been like that for centuries across the globe. And many philosophers justified the death penalty on the basis of revenge alone. It's not punishment. Punishment is meant to teach a lesson. Imprisoning a thief for ten years is punishment because he can learn from the consequence of his action. There's no learning from being killed. Also, don't get me started on the American Death Penalty. If you want a less 'impassioned' reason against the death penalty, there should be no death penalty because there's no infallible court system to prove 100% innocence and guilt. No matter how hard you try, you will end up killing innocent people just like how we have imprisoned innocent people. State sanctioned murder is no less abhorrent then personally committed murder. By its own logic, all supporters should be put to death for being absolutely involved in cold blooded murder once an innocent man has been falsely found guilty. But that's no the case. Why? Because it's the antithesis of law. there's no system for fallibility in the death penalty short of not killing the convict off the bat so he may later be absolved. It's dumb, senseless, and does nothing that imprisonment wouldn't besides sate subconscious bloodlust. Ugh I hate debating on tl, I dont know how to splice the quote system like I would on either sites, so ill just number my points. 1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society. 2) I don't care if theres a degree of error. The death of a few innocents is acceptable if we put down numerous mass murderers, or alternatively, those that may be repeat offenders in murder, rape, etc. 2 b) State sanctioned murder is not murder. You mean state sanctioned killing. And yes, state sanctioned killing is vastly less abhorrent to the alternative. It is not anarchistic, for one. It is directed in a very precise manner, as precise as is humanely possible, at someone who hurts society as a whole through their actions. Obviously by its own logic, state sanctioned murder doesn't call for executing people who are completely within the bounds of law and do nothing overtly negative to society. Thats just ridiculous and an absolutely terrible argument. And above all, it is the enforcement of law, which is a reflection of the morality and opinions of a society, and therefore in its own end, is a justification. 3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less.
2a) Are you serious? You would kill an innocent man, put him through twenty years of death row and then give him the fucking needle all while he is innocent so that you can see that serial killers and the like are put down when the same ends are accomplished by life in prison w/no parole? If you honestly think that a "few" innocents should die so that you can pointlessly kill people who will never have any future interaction with society to begin with, you are a fucking idiot.
3) No, please tell me, how many?
|
On January 01 2010 11:56 yhnmk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:45 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 01 2010 11:41 yhnmk wrote:On January 01 2010 11:39 TwoToneTerran wrote:
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.
If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again. lol, you can want revenge and expect extremely harsh punishments but still do it in a calculated and fair manner. For example: The American death penalty. :O it completely syncs up with law. Law aint just about rehabilitation or prevention, it is also about punishment. Its been like that for centuries across the globe. And many philosophers justified the death penalty on the basis of revenge alone. It's not punishment. Punishment is meant to teach a lesson. Imprisoning a thief for ten years is punishment because he can learn from the consequence of his action. There's no learning from being killed. Also, don't get me started on the American Death Penalty. If you want a less 'impassioned' reason against the death penalty, there should be no death penalty because there's no infallible court system to prove 100% innocence and guilt. No matter how hard you try, you will end up killing innocent people just like how we have imprisoned innocent people. State sanctioned murder is no less abhorrent then personally committed murder. By its own logic, all supporters should be put to death for being absolutely involved in cold blooded murder once an innocent man has been falsely found guilty. But that's no the case. Why? Because it's the antithesis of law. there's no system for fallibility in the death penalty short of not killing the convict off the bat so he may later be absolved. It's dumb, senseless, and does nothing that imprisonment wouldn't besides sate subconscious bloodlust. Ugh I hate debating on tl, I dont know how to splice the quote system like I would on either sites, so ill just number my points. 1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society. 2) I don't care if theres a degree of error. The death of a few innocents is acceptable if we put down numerous mass murderers, or alternatively, those that may be repeat offenders in murder, rape, etc. 2 b) State sanctioned murder is not murder. You mean state sanctioned killing. And yes, state sanctioned killing is vastly less abhorrent to the alternative. It is not anarchistic, for one. It is directed in a very precise manner, as precise as is humanely possible, at someone who hurts society as a whole through their actions. Obviously by its own logic, state sanctioned murder doesn't call for executing people who are completely within the bounds of law and do nothing overtly negative to society. Thats just ridiculous and an absolutely terrible argument. And above all, it is the enforcement of law, which is a reflection of the morality and opinions of a society, and therefore in its own end, is a justification. 3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less.
Are you serious? You would kill an innocent man, put him through twenty years of death row and then give him the fucking needle all while he is innocent so that you can see that serial killers and the like are put down when the same ends are accomplished by life in prison w/no parole? If you honestly think that a "few" innocents should die so that you can pointlessly kill people who will never have any future interaction with society to begin with, you are a fucking idiot.
3) No, please tell me, how many?
|
Difference of opinion withstanding, don't insult him. It does nothing but drive your argument, no matter how reasonable to yourself, away from rationality and reason.
It's hard enough to try to convince people on the internet, don't make it harder by calling them idiots for something that's very, from a psychological standpoint, common and understandable.
|
Life imprisonment until they rot in jail? You'd be surprised how many people in jail would rather just go ahead with the capital punishment then sit in jail forever or 25 years even. imo if you take someone else's life you have completely lost you're right to live as well why spend tax payer money on keeping this dude alive? would you if they took someone close to you? and this does not count the unfortunate incidents where innocent lives have been taken through capital punishment on faulty evidence.
|
On January 01 2010 12:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:56 yhnmk wrote:
1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society. Then it is not punishment. Do not call it punishment, do not pretend it is punishment. The Death Penalty has nothing to do with punishment and plays no supported factor in deterrence. It is, plain and simple, killing. You may justify it however you please. Whether it be "lessening a burden" on society, or doing away with the trash. Every single reason not related to Law is the exact same reason any other killer in the world could use, and by your logic, would be justified.
Sorry, but it is both punishment and killing. Justified or not, it is punishment. I might not support the death penalty, but it isn't because I think it is particularly cruel/inhumane. Personally I feel throwing someone in a room for the rest of their life (and no less a Chinese jail) is hardly merciful.
|
On January 01 2010 12:23 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Difference of opinion withstanding, don't insult him. It does nothing but drive your argument, no matter how reasonable to yourself, away from rationality and reason.
It's hard enough to try to convince people on the internet, don't make it harder by calling them idiots for something that's very, from a psychological standpoint, common and understandable.
there is nothing psychologically understandable about being a cold-hearted son of a bitch. if someone's views are stupid, they should be called out on it.
|
On January 01 2010 12:26 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 12:23 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Difference of opinion withstanding, don't insult him. It does nothing but drive your argument, no matter how reasonable to yourself, away from rationality and reason.
It's hard enough to try to convince people on the internet, don't make it harder by calling them idiots for something that's very, from a psychological standpoint, common and understandable. there is nothing psychologically understandable about being a cold-hearted son of a bitch. if someone's views are stupid, they should be called out on it.
Nobody is being cold-hearted and want innocent people to die, that's just error made somewhere along the lines either through faulty evidence, racism and even bad eye witness accusations (mistakes happen). We're arguing about the people that are doing the killing and people having different opinions on which is more inhumane rotting in jail or lethal injection.
|
On January 01 2010 12:24 BalliSLife wrote:
Life imprisonment until they rot in jail? You'd be surprised how many people in jail would rather just go ahead with the capital punishment then sit in jail forever or 25 years even. imo if you take someone else's life you have completely lost you're right to live as well why spend tax payer money on keeping this dude alive? would you if they took someone close to you? and this does not count the unfortunate incidents where innocent lives have been taken through capital punishment on faulty evidence.
That should be the convict's choice. If they opt to, they should be able to take a harsher penalty that is less burdensome, monetarily, to the public. But for those who wish to live, they should be allowed.
Life imprisonment isn't merciful, by any means, but it is the best option we have without resorting to the death of innocents.
On January 01 2010 12:30 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 12:26 Myxomatosis wrote:On January 01 2010 12:23 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Difference of opinion withstanding, don't insult him. It does nothing but drive your argument, no matter how reasonable to yourself, away from rationality and reason.
It's hard enough to try to convince people on the internet, don't make it harder by calling them idiots for something that's very, from a psychological standpoint, common and understandable. there is nothing psychologically understandable about being a cold-hearted son of a bitch. if someone's views are stupid, they should be called out on it. Nobody is being cold-hearted and want innocent people to die, that's just error made somewhere along the lines either through faulty evidence, racism and even bad eye witness accusations (mistakes happen). We're arguing about the people that are doing the killing and people having different opinions on which is more inhumane rotting in jail or lethal injection.
You can not separate the two. If you truly believe the death penalty should be exercised, then you must have weighed all the consequences. One of the consequences is the death of innocents -- presumably hundreds, considering I just showed proof of over a hundred death row inmates being absolved. How you weigh that is your own decision.
On January 01 2010 12:26 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 12:23 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Difference of opinion withstanding, don't insult him. It does nothing but drive your argument, no matter how reasonable to yourself, away from rationality and reason.
It's hard enough to try to convince people on the internet, don't make it harder by calling them idiots for something that's very, from a psychological standpoint, common and understandable. there is nothing psychologically understandable about being a cold-hearted son of a bitch. if someone's views are stupid, they should be called out on it.
Yes there is. Humans are aggressive, impulsive animals. It's a miracle we've come as far as we have before doing away with each other (not for a lack of trying!). One of our great feats is to overcome base instinct, but we can't absolutely do away with instinct as that's what allows us to thrive, as well. We need a common ground, and in my case, I don't believe it is found with the Death Penalty. Others disagree, and while I won't say it's fine, I will respect their opinion and not insult them. Respect is the first step to understanding, and I'm sorry if you can't see it that way.
|
So the convict chooses to live, you'll grant it to them after they murdered someone. I really don't know about that one dude. And then maybe after 25 years they somehow screw up again and take another life can you somehow see it wasn't worth it?
|
On January 01 2010 12:38 BalliSLife wrote:
So the convict chooses to live, you'll grant it to them after they murdered someone. I really don't know about that one dude.
No, we grant them the choice to die. Either way they are never coming in contact with innocent people who aren't payed to handle them (IE Penitentiary jobs.) Why? Because life imprisonment. No Parole. No getting out. High security, surgically implanted trackers if you really want (it's a very simple process). They don't get the chance to get out unless they never belonged there in the first place, ala being absolved of guilt.
|
On January 01 2010 12:40 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 12:38 BalliSLife wrote:
So the convict chooses to live, you'll grant it to them after they murdered someone. I really don't know about that one dude. No, we grant them the choice to die. Either way they are never coming in contact with innocent people who aren't payed to handle them (IE Penitentiary jobs.) Why? Because life imprisonment. No Parole. No getting out. High security, surgically implanted trackers if you really want (it's a very simple process). They don't get the chance to get out unless they never belonged there in the first place, ala being absolved of guilt.
That's a great idea. If everyone was able to think like you the world would be a much better place but unfortunately there are people who only pass judgment through pure emotion alone (revenge) and cost benefit (government) when dealing with life imprisonment and cap punishment. I believe there is ongoing debate between which is more expensive lethal injection or life imprisonment does anyone know?
|
|
|
On January 01 2010 12:51 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 12:40 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 01 2010 12:38 BalliSLife wrote:
So the convict chooses to live, you'll grant it to them after they murdered someone. I really don't know about that one dude. No, we grant them the choice to die. Either way they are never coming in contact with innocent people who aren't payed to handle them (IE Penitentiary jobs.) Why? Because life imprisonment. No Parole. No getting out. High security, surgically implanted trackers if you really want (it's a very simple process). They don't get the chance to get out unless they never belonged there in the first place, ala being absolved of guilt. That's a great idea. If everyone was able to think like you the world would be a much better place but unfortunately there are people who only pass judgment through pure emotion alone (revenge) and cost benefit (government) when dealing with life imprisonment and cap punishment. I believe there is ongoing debate between which is more expensive lethal injection or life imprisonment does anyone know?
Depends on the legal process.
In a place like China, life imprisonment probably costs more.
In the US, due to all the appeals and the lengthy court cases, Death Penalty costs more.
I support Death Penalty if it's cheap for crimes like Murder and Rape, but not in the US cuz it costs too much. =/
|
Money really shouldn't be an issue in human life, though. It's just easier to refute the "It's cheaper to kill" argument with cold hard facts saying otherwise than reasoning that money equating to human life is folly.
|
On January 01 2010 11:29 TwoToneTerran wrote:
One less jaywalker off the face of the planet.
There's no line to draw with killing. You don't do it, there's no reason to do it.
this isn't my benefit. I've never touched an illegal drug and hopefully never will. This is appealing to the sense of reason in folks to understand that capital punishment has no effect over imprisonment other than killing them.
It MAY cut costs in China because they're much quicker to execute than America (The cost is negligible here because it's a long drawn out complicated process), but government equating human life to their changepurse is literally precedent for genocide.
edit: and frankly, are you naive enough to think that that 4KG of Heroin never making it to the market will somehow curb heroin abuse? As has been said, heroin addicts are basically the absolute in desperation to get their high. A drop in the bucket won't do anything. If china is so serious about the drug game to murder a man for 4KGs of Heroin then they should be going for mass executions against drug trafficking areas.
They don't because drug culture is profitable. They just caught one and like to play angry and appease the senseless masses.
Um how exactly does economics equate to genocide? Won't have much tax revenue if you kill off all your citizens.
Also, China has done mass executions of drug dealers. Hence why there are not large "drug trafficking areas" in China like you see in SE Asia, C. and S. America, Middle East, etc. Have you done any reading on the drug war in China? You sound like a ninny when talking about the subject.
|
You'd save your country money by killing anyone who his a deficit to your GDP, obviously, which would be akin to a prejudiced culling, ie Genocide. Money cannot equal human life.
Also, I remember reading a couple years back about China's drug war failing due to the rampant power and wealth of druglords, but I could be wrong. But I doubt China is doing its absolute most to eliminate every drug threat in the country, else this guy would've never even had the opportunity to smuggle.
I will admit to not being a scholar on the subject, but I thought you were above namecalling, StorkHwaiting. We used to agree so much in other threads. ):
|
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed
|
On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed
Arguing against the death penalty in general is arguing against the Death Penalty for drug trafficking just as a matter of course.
|
On January 01 2010 13:10 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:29 TwoToneTerran wrote:
One less jaywalker off the face of the planet.
There's no line to draw with killing. You don't do it, there's no reason to do it.
this isn't my benefit. I've never touched an illegal drug and hopefully never will. This is appealing to the sense of reason in folks to understand that capital punishment has no effect over imprisonment other than killing them.
It MAY cut costs in China because they're much quicker to execute than America (The cost is negligible here because it's a long drawn out complicated process), but government equating human life to their changepurse is literally precedent for genocide.
edit: and frankly, are you naive enough to think that that 4KG of Heroin never making it to the market will somehow curb heroin abuse? As has been said, heroin addicts are basically the absolute in desperation to get their high. A drop in the bucket won't do anything. If china is so serious about the drug game to murder a man for 4KGs of Heroin then they should be going for mass executions against drug trafficking areas.
They don't because drug culture is profitable. They just caught one and like to play angry and appease the senseless masses. Um how exactly does economics equate to genocide? Won't have much tax revenue if you kill off all your citizens. Also, China has done mass executions of drug dealers. Hence why there are not large "drug trafficking areas" in China like you see in SE Asia, C. and S. America, Middle East, etc. Have you done any reading on the drug war in China? You sound like a ninny when talking about the subject.
More specifically about the drug problem in China, you're out of your mind if you think China doesn't have a drug trafficking problem -- and not because it's a bad country or anything, but from a pure locational standpoint. It's one of the prime producers in drug ingredients, as well as sharing a close relation to Burma and practically every Pacific Rim country imaginable, all which are deeply ingrained in the world-wide drug ring.
It also doesn't help that China is in close relation to the most drug affected countries in the world, ala the Middle East with Afghanistan, etc. Maybe China does go on raids, but I doubt they're dedicating the resources they have available to stopping the problem, elsewise they'd be invading every country that shares a border with them not named Russia.
It doesn't help that as the years go on, drug seizure levels have dropped in China (though info is sparse as China is a bit reclusive about this info and would obviously heavily propagandize it within its own media) because their large raids have become less and less effectives as drug traffickers have become more savvy and started using children, women, and the uneducated to split large shipments into countless smaller measures. China is a asian drug hotspot. Why? Because China is a hotspot for EVERYTHING in Asia because it's such a large, influential country.
|
On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed
What kind of drug lord would trust 4kg of heroin to someone mentally ill? seriously.
|
On January 01 2010 13:25 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed What kind of drug lord would trust 4kg of heroin to someone mentally ill? seriously.
Using the dumb, young, and ill is the primary strategy for trafficking drugs in countries that deal with drug raids in a highly militaristic sense, actually. Lots of small shipments on the backs of people who don't know better.
|
On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed
And what precisely is the "value of human [sic]"? Who or what defines such value?
|
On January 01 2010 13:33 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed And what precisely is the "value of human [sic]"? Who or what defines such value?
No one truly can (as any person views their own life as invaluable, and thus has a skewed premise), and since human lives obviously have some intrinsic value that we can't properly equate due to personal bias, the fairest assumption is that human life is all invaluable.
|
On January 01 2010 13:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:
You'd save your country money by killing anyone who his a deficit to your GDP, obviously, which would be akin to a prejudiced culling, ie Genocide. Money cannot equal human life.
Also, I remember reading a couple years back about China's drug war failing due to the rampant power and wealth of druglords, but I could be wrong. But I doubt China is doing its absolute most to eliminate every drug threat in the country, else this guy would've never even had the opportunity to smuggle.
I will admit to not being a scholar on the subject, but I thought you were above namecalling, StorkHwaiting. We used to agree so much in other threads. ):
Lol sorry my fellow TLizen, I didn't mean to be rude to you. I will now hide behind the fact that I said LIKE a ninny rather than you actually are one. XD
Honestly though, I have no strong feelings on it. Death penalty is rather inhumane, but I'm of the opinion that life in prison is just as inhumane. To me, it's a necessary evil. Something that ideally I wish never had to happen, but realistically I can't deny that it's necessary. Is it perfect? No. Do I have a better solution? Not at all. That's why I can't really call foul on it. Sort of like how democracy (as we know it in the modern world) is deeply flawed but it's better than most everything else we've come up with.
I'm just waiting for someone to bring up a rational and effective alternate solution. Just being outraged doesn't do much for me. It seems like making a fuss for the sake of it.
On the history of China. It's been a long standing policy since Mao's rulership that drug dealers were executed on sight. They've actually progressed some since then with a half hour trial lol. Before it was grab and shoot. And honestly, this isn't something like cherry picking criminals. If there's a guy they know is a drug dealer, they shoot him. Can the central government be held at fault if provincial/local/municipal authorities are corrupt? Not always. This is a very young nation here right now. 65 years is not a long time to establish efficient rule of law. Look at how America was 65 years after the constitution. Wild West would be a good example of how f-ed up things are before the gov't gets enough time to settle in and set up a good foundation.
And this isn't an example of gov't just picking on some little guy. The Chinese gov't does not discriminate. They'll take the director of an entire department in the government and have him shot out back if they catch him being corrupt. China is sers no joke about this. They will execute high-ranking officials who got caught with their hand in the pot.
It's not some corrupt dictatorship a la N. Korea running things in China. It's a semi-functional one-party government trying to clean up the mess that is their country after 250+ years of foreign conquest and civil war. Not an easy task. I'm def not some red-blooded China nationalist. There are some serious systemic issues over there. But I recognize that much of the government's failings are understandable when taken in context of the historical situation. This is not to say I condone or find their failings justified by history, ONLY understandable. They should change, they will change, it will just take a few more decades to get the job done.
|
On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed
It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it.
Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision.
And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts.
and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys
|
On January 01 2010 13:25 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed What kind of drug lord would trust 4kg of heroin to someone mentally ill? seriously.
Drug lord =! suave international business man.
|
On January 01 2010 13:35 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:
You'd save your country money by killing anyone who his a deficit to your GDP, obviously, which would be akin to a prejudiced culling, ie Genocide. Money cannot equal human life.
Also, I remember reading a couple years back about China's drug war failing due to the rampant power and wealth of druglords, but I could be wrong. But I doubt China is doing its absolute most to eliminate every drug threat in the country, else this guy would've never even had the opportunity to smuggle.
I will admit to not being a scholar on the subject, but I thought you were above namecalling, StorkHwaiting. We used to agree so much in other threads. ): Lol sorry my fellow TLizen, I didn't mean to be rude to you. I will now hide behind the fact that I said LIKE a ninny rather than you actually are one. XD Honestly though, I have no strong feelings on it. Death penalty is rather inhumane, but I'm of the opinion that life in prison is just as inhumane. To me, it's a necessary evil. Something that ideally I wish never had to happen, but realistically I can't deny that it's necessary. Is it perfect? No. Do I have a better solution? Not at all. That's why I can't really call foul on it. Sort of like how democracy (as we know it in the modern world) is deeply flawed but it's better than most everything else we've come up with. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up a rational and effective alternate solution. Just being outraged doesn't do much for me. It seems like making a fuss for the sake of it.
Yeah, but Life imprisonment atleast allows eventual absolution so long as it's possible for the innocents. And if someone thinks life in prison too unbearable, I think it's reasonable that we allow them the dignity of choosing death over lack of freedom, I personally never would, because I fear death too much, but some are far braver than myself.
On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys
It's a renewable and highly available resource. And I'm not saying we shouldn't stop drug trafficking, but we shouldn't shoot the guys who do it off the bat for the several reasons as spelled out in this thread (like those doing it being ill/young/uneducated and tricked into it, death penalty having no purpose short of killing for killing's sake, etc etc).
I know it's a long thread but try to grasp the entire argument before picking and choosing little bits to lash out against.
I'm not racist. =(
|
On January 01 2010 13:38 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:35 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:
You'd save your country money by killing anyone who his a deficit to your GDP, obviously, which would be akin to a prejudiced culling, ie Genocide. Money cannot equal human life.
Also, I remember reading a couple years back about China's drug war failing due to the rampant power and wealth of druglords, but I could be wrong. But I doubt China is doing its absolute most to eliminate every drug threat in the country, else this guy would've never even had the opportunity to smuggle.
I will admit to not being a scholar on the subject, but I thought you were above namecalling, StorkHwaiting. We used to agree so much in other threads. ): Lol sorry my fellow TLizen, I didn't mean to be rude to you. I will now hide behind the fact that I said LIKE a ninny rather than you actually are one. XD Honestly though, I have no strong feelings on it. Death penalty is rather inhumane, but I'm of the opinion that life in prison is just as inhumane. To me, it's a necessary evil. Something that ideally I wish never had to happen, but realistically I can't deny that it's necessary. Is it perfect? No. Do I have a better solution? Not at all. That's why I can't really call foul on it. Sort of like how democracy (as we know it in the modern world) is deeply flawed but it's better than most everything else we've come up with. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up a rational and effective alternate solution. Just being outraged doesn't do much for me. It seems like making a fuss for the sake of it. Yeah, but Life imprisonment atleast allows eventual absolution so long as it's possible for the innocents. And if someone thinks life in prison too unbearable, I think it's reasonable that we allow them the dignity of choosing death over lack of freedom, I personally never would, because I fear death too much, but some are far braver than myself.
Trust me, life in a Chinese prison would be a fate far worse than lethal injection. FAR FAR worse.
|
On January 01 2010 13:39 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:38 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 01 2010 13:35 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:
You'd save your country money by killing anyone who his a deficit to your GDP, obviously, which would be akin to a prejudiced culling, ie Genocide. Money cannot equal human life.
Also, I remember reading a couple years back about China's drug war failing due to the rampant power and wealth of druglords, but I could be wrong. But I doubt China is doing its absolute most to eliminate every drug threat in the country, else this guy would've never even had the opportunity to smuggle.
I will admit to not being a scholar on the subject, but I thought you were above namecalling, StorkHwaiting. We used to agree so much in other threads. ): Lol sorry my fellow TLizen, I didn't mean to be rude to you. I will now hide behind the fact that I said LIKE a ninny rather than you actually are one. XD Honestly though, I have no strong feelings on it. Death penalty is rather inhumane, but I'm of the opinion that life in prison is just as inhumane. To me, it's a necessary evil. Something that ideally I wish never had to happen, but realistically I can't deny that it's necessary. Is it perfect? No. Do I have a better solution? Not at all. That's why I can't really call foul on it. Sort of like how democracy (as we know it in the modern world) is deeply flawed but it's better than most everything else we've come up with. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up a rational and effective alternate solution. Just being outraged doesn't do much for me. It seems like making a fuss for the sake of it. Yeah, but Life imprisonment atleast allows eventual absolution so long as it's possible for the innocents. And if someone thinks life in prison too unbearable, I think it's reasonable that we allow them the dignity of choosing death over lack of freedom, I personally never would, because I fear death too much, but some are far braver than myself. Trust me, life in a Chinese prison would be a fate far worse than lethal injection. FAR FAR worse.
I believe you, and maybe it is a slightly better alternative in that situation, but we are speaking a little bit in slightly idealistic terms, here. Obviously prisons should be maintained sensibly etc etc. How shitty a prison is shouldn't really factor into the purely philosophical reasoning of it!
It'd be nice if we could fix up China a lot, but that's a long ways away. :o
Hell it'd be nice if we could fix up USA while we're at it. >:[
|
On January 01 2010 13:35 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:33 Draconizard wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed And what precisely is the "value of human [sic]"? Who or what defines such value? No one truly can (as any person views their own life as invaluable, and thus has a skewed premise), and since human lives obviously have some intrinsic value that we can't properly equate due to personal bias, the fairest assumption is that human life is all invaluable.
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. If I hadn't read through some of your other posts here, I would have immediately assumed you to be trolling.
I do not consider my own life invaluable (not even close), and I certainly consider others' lives not to be either. How could any decision involving risks to human lives be made properly if the value of those lives were set to infinity by default? The world does not operate in such a manner, and more importantly, it should not operate in such a manner.
|
You are framed for a crime that, if guilty, results in the death penalty. Is your life, to you, worth losing so long as the death penalty keeps on killing bad guys?
Would you put a numeric value on your life? If you put your net worth and prospective future net worth down on paper and could give that money to anyone you felt like, would you die to do it? Don't just shoulder these questions and quickly toss yes's and no's at it -- truly imagine that you, as a thinking breathing being, will no longer be here. Everything you've become is puffed out of existence. It's a truly grim fact of life. I know there is religion and such to help cope with death, but would you truly and honestly let yourself die for any of these things? If so you're a much stronger person than I am.
It's not an unreasonable GENERALIZATION. To most people, atleast, their personal life is fairly invaluable as far as money and philosophy is concerned. There are those who sacrifice themselves to save other lives, and those are truly great people. But, even they only sacrifice themselves for something else invaluable -- another person's life.
Maybe you can easily tag a value to human life, but I honestly can't.
|
On January 01 2010 13:38 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:35 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:
You'd save your country money by killing anyone who his a deficit to your GDP, obviously, which would be akin to a prejudiced culling, ie Genocide. Money cannot equal human life.
Also, I remember reading a couple years back about China's drug war failing due to the rampant power and wealth of druglords, but I could be wrong. But I doubt China is doing its absolute most to eliminate every drug threat in the country, else this guy would've never even had the opportunity to smuggle.
I will admit to not being a scholar on the subject, but I thought you were above namecalling, StorkHwaiting. We used to agree so much in other threads. ): Lol sorry my fellow TLizen, I didn't mean to be rude to you. I will now hide behind the fact that I said LIKE a ninny rather than you actually are one. XD Honestly though, I have no strong feelings on it. Death penalty is rather inhumane, but I'm of the opinion that life in prison is just as inhumane. To me, it's a necessary evil. Something that ideally I wish never had to happen, but realistically I can't deny that it's necessary. Is it perfect? No. Do I have a better solution? Not at all. That's why I can't really call foul on it. Sort of like how democracy (as we know it in the modern world) is deeply flawed but it's better than most everything else we've come up with. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up a rational and effective alternate solution. Just being outraged doesn't do much for me. It seems like making a fuss for the sake of it. Yeah, but Life imprisonment atleast allows eventual absolution so long as it's possible for the innocents. And if someone thinks life in prison too unbearable, I think it's reasonable that we allow them the dignity of choosing death over lack of freedom, I personally never would, because I fear death too much, but some are far braver than myself. Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys It's a renewable and highly available resource. And I'm not saying we shouldn't stop drug trafficking, but we shouldn't shoot the guys who do it off the bat for the several reasons as spelled out in this thread (like those doing it being ill/young/uneducated and tricked into it, death penalty having no purpose short of killing for killing's sake, etc etc). I know it's a long thread but try to grasp the entire argument before picking and choosing little bits to lash out against. I'm not racist. =(
I read the entire thread, thanks for assuming. Not saying we should shoot anybody, just saying that 4000 grams of heroine does a lot more than you idealistic ragers think. Also, in terms of their expressly stated criteria (valuing human lives), that the importing of heroine outweighs one British supposedly bipolar guy.
Try to grasp the entire argument before picking and choosing little bits that weren't even in my post to lash out against.
and i wasn't talking about you, i love the "CHINA = COMMUNIST" and "US = RETARDED EGOCENTRICS" on both sides. i have a weird sense of humor (:
|
I was assuming, and I apologize, but you clearly left out arguments that addressed similar points to your own.
And yes, I know about drugs harming peoples' lives. I've experienced it first hand (albeit much less severely than the truly impoverished), and for that, I believe this man should've been imprisoned for quite some time until absolved (though I think life imprisonment is too harsh, especially if he was honestly mentally unaware of the situation), but not killed. No one should be killed when they are in custody and pose no threat to the outside world.
To kill someone by the state you must catch them, and once you catch them, short of gross incompetence, they pose no harm to others, and thus shouldn't be disposed of.
I'm not raging, though. =\ It's a shame you think I'm lashing out in anger. I've dealt with this argument very often and am completely understanding of it. Myself and my father, who disagree greatly on this very subject, used to have long conversations about it. I'm just doing my best to help others understand my points, because I believe they are very strong and well thought out points.
|
On January 01 2010 13:42 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:39 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 01 2010 13:38 TwoToneTerran wrote:On January 01 2010 13:35 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 TwoToneTerran wrote:
You'd save your country money by killing anyone who his a deficit to your GDP, obviously, which would be akin to a prejudiced culling, ie Genocide. Money cannot equal human life.
Also, I remember reading a couple years back about China's drug war failing due to the rampant power and wealth of druglords, but I could be wrong. But I doubt China is doing its absolute most to eliminate every drug threat in the country, else this guy would've never even had the opportunity to smuggle.
I will admit to not being a scholar on the subject, but I thought you were above namecalling, StorkHwaiting. We used to agree so much in other threads. ): Lol sorry my fellow TLizen, I didn't mean to be rude to you. I will now hide behind the fact that I said LIKE a ninny rather than you actually are one. XD Honestly though, I have no strong feelings on it. Death penalty is rather inhumane, but I'm of the opinion that life in prison is just as inhumane. To me, it's a necessary evil. Something that ideally I wish never had to happen, but realistically I can't deny that it's necessary. Is it perfect? No. Do I have a better solution? Not at all. That's why I can't really call foul on it. Sort of like how democracy (as we know it in the modern world) is deeply flawed but it's better than most everything else we've come up with. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up a rational and effective alternate solution. Just being outraged doesn't do much for me. It seems like making a fuss for the sake of it. Yeah, but Life imprisonment atleast allows eventual absolution so long as it's possible for the innocents. And if someone thinks life in prison too unbearable, I think it's reasonable that we allow them the dignity of choosing death over lack of freedom, I personally never would, because I fear death too much, but some are far braver than myself. Trust me, life in a Chinese prison would be a fate far worse than lethal injection. FAR FAR worse. I believe you, and maybe it is a slightly better alternative in that situation, but we are speaking a little bit in slightly idealistic terms, here. Obviously prisons should be maintained sensibly etc etc. How shitty a prison is shouldn't really factor into the purely philosophical reasoning of it! It'd be nice if we could fix up China a lot, but that's a long ways away. :o Hell it'd be nice if we could fix up USA while we're at it. >:[
That's my general point. I find it rather ineffective to cry out against a lot of the things that are just a fact of life. If someone had a proposal or some plan to action, I'd be interested. But just bashing China isn't going to fix anything. It happens in many threads and the solution is to help China economically and politically. Half the reason they do things in such a roughshod manner is because they're not yet politically mature/capable as a government. Trying to tear the current government down or undermine it by making the citizens rebellious doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Rather, helping the government and providing it with the advisers/specialists that can help China establish a better rule of law/judicial system etc would be vastly more helpful.
Like I said before, this isn't N. Korea here. China sends their best to Western countries to try to learn how things are done. They try to implement some of the systems and techniques of other countries. They're very open to improving their country. That's why I don't understand the bashing.
The problem is their own citizens aren't quite ready for it. Just like Americans aren't ready for civil rights like gay marriage just yet, even though morally and ethically it's repugnant that it hasn't occurred. Take a look at some footage of how Chinese citizens are. You tell them to stay home to avoid the spread of SARS because you're trying to contain an epidemic. What do Chinese people do? They all fucking come out, walk around, try to go to the doctors, when half of them aren't even sick. They just want to screw around coz they think they know better.
Culturally, Chinese are just not a very obedient body of citizens and they have a great distrust of government. That's what happens when you have two centuries of really inept governance. Trying to overthrow the Chinese gov't isn't going to fix that. It's damn near a miracle that China's even held it together as well as they have. And it's still a pot that's close to boiling over. A lot of the stuff I see China condemned for happens out of necessity rather than some deliberately malicious tyranny.
Tiananmen was hotly debated by Chinese leaders before they finally gave the go-ahead to put down the protests. There was a lot of internal wrangling among the top brass. And the guy who pulled the trigger on it was Deng Xiaoping AKA the father of Chinese capitalism. One of the most liberal Chinese leaders. And he didn't do it because he liked to see his people get squished by tanks. Honest. It's more like he did it because he'd lived through the Chinese civil war and in his mind, a few hundred dead college students is better than the possibility of a repeat civil war, in which many millions died only a few decades ago.
A big reason why a lot of Chinese people get really nationalistic is because they feel on the defensive. Yo, when your history classes are full of factual examples in recent history of other nations beating the hell out of your people and raping your country for natural resources/trade surpluses, you tend to get wary of their motives. When the USA doesn't send aid other than corporations who want to invest (AKA put Chinese children to work in NIKE sweatshops) and is constantly throwing up articles in the media to try to slander China, that tends to make Chinese citizens defensive. When the Pentagon draws up plans to invade/conquer/neutralize China, that tends to make Chinese people think the USA is not friendly. When the US sends warships up and down the Taiwan Strait... etc. When the USA has spyplanes get shot down ... etc.
I think it's kind of perverse that Americans enjoy their consumerist lifestyles of luxury due in very large part to the cheap labor of Chinese workers and the nigh endless financing of US debt by Chinese capital, yet want to turn around and bash China a ton and throw their lofty ideals in China's face. It reeks of hypocrisy.
Yes, if everyone was born in a country that was able to reap the profits of empire building, conquest, and financial hegemony, I'm sure they too would have lots of highfaluten ideas about what should and shouldn't occur in the world. Sadly, people in other countries are too busy gluing the rubber soles on sneakers and getting brain damage from the fumes to sit down and think on all these weighty matters and cast an opinion onto the waves of the Internet.
|
On January 01 2010 13:47 TwoToneTerran wrote:
You are framed for a crime that, if guilty, results in the death penalty. Is your life, to you, worth losing so long as the death penalty keeps on killing bad guys?
Would you put a numeric value on your life? If you put your net worth and prospective future net worth down on paper and could give that money to anyone you felt like, would you die to do it? Don't just shoulder these questions and quickly toss yes's and no's at it -- truly imagine that you, as a thinking breathing being, will no longer be here. Everything you've become is puffed out of existence. It's a truly grim fact of life. I know there is religion and such to help cope with death, but would you truly and honestly let yourself die for any of these things? If so you're a much stronger person than I am.
It's not an unreasonable GENERALIZATION. To most people, atleast, their personal life is fairly invaluable as far as money and philosophy is concerned.
My statements had nothing to do with the death penalty. They were general comments about the supposed value of human life.
Certainly, I would readily put a price on my own life, as I would for any life. The precise tabulations may prove arduous, and there may be some haggling over the details, but there's no metaphysical barrier that prevents it from being done. The entire insurance industry does this on a daily basis, after all.
Why all the fear of eventual nonexistence? It is one of the absolute constants that binds all members of humanity together, regardless of creed or origin. How many individuals have sacrificed their lives throughout history so that either other individuals or some cause could benefit? They must surely number into the millions.
|
Into the millions. So less than a tenth of a percentile of people? That's pretty rare, if you ask me.
If you don't fear nonexistence, then why aren't you risking your life on an hourly basis? Self preservation is important to continue growth of the species, to be frank, and from a personal perspective, I want to keep on keeping on as long as I can, because, frankly, I enjoy living. Most people do. The ones who don't tend to tally our suicide numbers, I'd imagine.
StorkHwaiting: Man you just made me all depressed. I know, the world sucks, but I can still be all philosophical without being terrible, can't I? =\
|
On January 01 2010 14:08 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Into the millions. So less than a tenth of a percentile of people? That's pretty rare, if you ask me.
If you don't fear nonexistence, then why aren't you risking your life on an hourly basis? Self preservation is important to continue growth of the species, to be frank, and from a personal perspective, I want to keep on keeping on as long as I can, because, frankly, I enjoy living. Most people do. The ones who don't tend to tally our suicide numbers, I'd imagine.
StorkHwaiting: Man you just made me all depressed. I know, the world sucks, but I can still be all philosophical without being terrible, can't I? =\
Don't circumvent the topic by concentrating on the number.
You, as well as everyone else for that matter, do risk your life on an hourly basis. Everything one does is a calculated risk. Perhaps you should refrain from crossing the street in the near future? I'm sure there are statistics out there that cite the likelihood of you getting run over at a specific time and place. If you truly valued your own existence as infinite, which you obviously do not despite your protestations, you would never partake in this or any other countless number of mundane activities with the slightest amount of risk attached.
You already have an internal value of your own life, and it is most certainly not infinite.
|
On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys
Actually I'd rather not, TwoToneTerran can handle it
|
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life.
|
On January 01 2010 14:08 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Into the millions. So less than a tenth of a percentile of people? That's pretty rare, if you ask me.
If you don't fear nonexistence, then why aren't you risking your life on an hourly basis? Self preservation is important to continue growth of the species, to be frank, and from a personal perspective, I want to keep on keeping on as long as I can, because, frankly, I enjoy living. Most people do. The ones who don't tend to tally our suicide numbers, I'd imagine.
StorkHwaiting: Man you just made me all depressed. I know, the world sucks, but I can still be all philosophical without being terrible, can't I? =\
Lol sorry to lay that on you buddy. I think you're well within your rights wax philosophical, just always do it with the humility of knowing that you are priviliged to have a better understanding of the world around you because you were lucky to be born into a country and family that has allowed you that luxury.
And that many of the people/governments/etc that you find fault with were not as lucky as you are.
Personally, I try to say that ethically I can envision there is another way, but realistically I understand the stresses they made their decisions under and that it is the rare government which does things purely out of evil/ignorance. There are regimes of evil out there, but quite often even those were created by the evils of others. N. Korea is one of them. Saddam's Iraq was another one of them. These countries are victims of the power struggles of greater nations and I pity them more than condemn them. Then there are the countries that are trying to do their job, trying to improve the quality of life of their people, and sometimes it's just a damn hard job.
|
On January 01 2010 14:23 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys Hmm where to start, heroine prevention is important because heroin is an addictive and dangerous drug and any reduction of it's availability is a step in the right direction; everyone agrees with that. Thats not the issue you here even if you'd like it to be because obviously you'd be right. The dealer doesn't force the user to use drugs, he enables their drug use; he doesn't actively "destory 28,000 lives" and to attribute that solely to the dealer is absurd fallacy. My criteria is not "harming human life", that's your criteria. My criteria is human life has invaluable intrinsic worth and can't be taken away as retribution for X amount of damage done. Moreover, jail is not beneficial, when you put someone away you aren't helping them; its punishment for his wrong. But what a drug trafficker does is not murder, he doesn't deserve a death penalty. Other problems with your post; 1) 4,000 grams of heroine is 4kilos, we can all do the conversion; your trying to exaggerate its severity by misrepresenting the units and it's a stupid tactic. 2) I don't see any "racist ignorant hate" but if you want to victimize yourself that's cool I guess
I think the difference in opinion here is that the execution was not in retribution. Rather it was a preventative to further drug trafficking. They weren't "punishing" the drug dealer. They were making an example of him. It might not help the drug dealer, but perhaps it would help the billion+ people in China who might have been affected by access to heroin or entertained the notion of taking up the drug trade.
A similar analogy in my mind would be Martha Stewart being sent to jail for insider trading. OK she was financially unethical. She cheated the system. Does this warrant jail time? She was fined MUCH more than she profited by the illegal trade.
I think it's a somewhat odd notion to say that the "punishment" for breaking a law should be the direct equivalent of damage or losses done by the crime itself. That may be poetic justice but it doesn't make for a very sound judicial system.
|
lol chinese people...all you can do is lol
|
On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life.
Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating?
You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them.
|
How dare them big bad Chinese government executed our very nice freedom loving drug pusher guy!! We'll start opium war no.3 on them.
|
On January 01 2010 14:39 ProbeSaturation wrote:
lol chinese people...all you can do is lol
Muahaha
You, sir, have just been counter trolled.
|
On January 01 2010 14:29 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:23 n.DieJokes wrote:On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys Hmm where to start, heroine prevention is important because heroin is an addictive and dangerous drug and any reduction of it's availability is a step in the right direction; everyone agrees with that. Thats not the issue you here even if you'd like it to be because obviously you'd be right. The dealer doesn't force the user to use drugs, he enables their drug use; he doesn't actively "destory 28,000 lives" and to attribute that solely to the dealer is absurd fallacy. My criteria is not "harming human life", that's your criteria. My criteria is human life has invaluable intrinsic worth and can't be taken away as retribution for X amount of damage done. Moreover, jail is not beneficial, when you put someone away you aren't helping them; its punishment for his wrong. But what a drug trafficker does is not murder, he doesn't deserve a death penalty. Other problems with your post; 1) 4,000 grams of heroine is 4kilos, we can all do the conversion; your trying to exaggerate its severity by misrepresenting the units and it's a stupid tactic. 2) I don't see any "racist ignorant hate" but if you want to victimize yourself that's cool I guess I think the difference in opinion here is that the execution was not in retribution. Rather it was a preventative to further drug trafficking. They weren't "punishing" the drug dealer. They were making an example of him. It might not help the drug dealer, but perhaps it would help the billion+ people in China who might have been affected by access to heroin or entertained the notion of taking up the drug trade. A similar analogy in my mind would be Martha Stewart being sent to jail for insider trading. OK she was financially unethical. She cheated the system. Does this warrant jail time? She was fined MUCH more than she profited by the illegal trade. I think it's a somewhat odd notion to say that the "punishment" for breaking a law should be the direct equivalent of damage or losses done by the crime itself. That may be poetic justice but it doesn't make for a very sound judicial system.
Yea, I was trying to make a point concisely but I botched it. I can tell you with absolute certainty that drug trafficking shouldn't be punished with death and that intotherainx post is absurd but I've never tried to lay out the philosophy behind it and what I wrote up there wasn't very good. Sometimes I like to jump into these threads just to see where I'm at and about halfway through that post I decided I don't have anything more than I vague and unfinished idea of why I believe what I do and shouldn't be posting. Live and learn I guess, thank you though
|
On January 01 2010 14:42 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life. Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating? You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them.
No single person would think it fair if a government executed them for having 4 kilos of Heroin.
If they did I'd have to think them a bit loopy.
It's just easier to stomach because a mostly faceless government is doing it.
Faceless mob mentality, nothing justifiable about it, the argument is in a circle.
|
On January 01 2010 14:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:42 Draconizard wrote:On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life. Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating? You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them. No single person would think it fair if a government executed them for having 4 kilos of Heroin. If they did I'd have to think them a bit loopy. It's just easier to stomach because a mostly faceless government is doing it. Faceless mob mentality, nothing justifiable about it, the argument is in a circle.
Naturally, there are few perpetrators fond of their punishments. That's hardly a good measurement tool for "fair" (what does that even mean?) sentences.
|
It's not a matter of perpetration so much as actual public opinion of the penalty. It's easy to shoo off as fair when you don't actually think about the situation.
|
|
|
On January 01 2010 14:50 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:29 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 01 2010 14:23 n.DieJokes wrote:On January 01 2010 13:36 intotherainx wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed It's so painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about the actual drug involved that you and everyone else arguing along this line has NO IDEA what heroine does. FOUR THOUSAND GRAMS OF HEROINE??? Do ANY of you guys have any CONCEPTION of what this means? I think the estimate of 28,000 lives destroyed or seriously impacted is probably accurate, or even underestimated. Heroine isn't just "bad," it fucking DESTROYS, and if you don't get that, don't make yourself look like a fool by talking about it. Using your own criteria of not harming lives, this decision was BY INCREDIBLY FAR the right decision. And anybody saying some kilos missing won't address the addiction problem is just wrong. Availability is a big factor (esp in Asian countries where it's rarer), and that much heroine will probably generate a large amount of new addicts. and lol i always love reading ignorant racist hate, keep it up guys Hmm where to start, heroine prevention is important because heroin is an addictive and dangerous drug and any reduction of it's availability is a step in the right direction; everyone agrees with that. Thats not the issue you here even if you'd like it to be because obviously you'd be right. The dealer doesn't force the user to use drugs, he enables their drug use; he doesn't actively "destory 28,000 lives" and to attribute that solely to the dealer is absurd fallacy. My criteria is not "harming human life", that's your criteria. My criteria is human life has invaluable intrinsic worth and can't be taken away as retribution for X amount of damage done. Moreover, jail is not beneficial, when you put someone away you aren't helping them; its punishment for his wrong. But what a drug trafficker does is not murder, he doesn't deserve a death penalty. Other problems with your post; 1) 4,000 grams of heroine is 4kilos, we can all do the conversion; your trying to exaggerate its severity by misrepresenting the units and it's a stupid tactic. 2) I don't see any "racist ignorant hate" but if you want to victimize yourself that's cool I guess I think the difference in opinion here is that the execution was not in retribution. Rather it was a preventative to further drug trafficking. They weren't "punishing" the drug dealer. They were making an example of him. It might not help the drug dealer, but perhaps it would help the billion+ people in China who might have been affected by access to heroin or entertained the notion of taking up the drug trade. A similar analogy in my mind would be Martha Stewart being sent to jail for insider trading. OK she was financially unethical. She cheated the system. Does this warrant jail time? She was fined MUCH more than she profited by the illegal trade. I think it's a somewhat odd notion to say that the "punishment" for breaking a law should be the direct equivalent of damage or losses done by the crime itself. That may be poetic justice but it doesn't make for a very sound judicial system. Yea, I was trying to make a point concisely but I botched it. I can tell you with absolute certainty that drug trafficking shouldn't be punished with death and that intotherainx post is absurd but I've never tried to lay out the philosophy behind it and what I wrote up there wasn't very good. Sometimes I like to jump into these threads just to see where I'm at and about halfway through that post I decided I don't have anything more than I vague and unfinished idea of why I believe what I do and shouldn't be posting. Live and learn I guess, thank you though
It's all good Jokes. That's pretty much exactly what debates/forums are for
|
|
|
That was some great insight and analysis on China StorkHwaiting !
|
On January 01 2010 14:51 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 14:42 Draconizard wrote:On January 01 2010 14:24 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Well Life is pointless in absolute isolation. The value of a human, and to myself, is their experiences and, while there is risk to those experiences, I'm pretty sure it's fair to say those risks are mitigated in comparison to sure-fire ways to die, such as being framed for a death penalty crime or suicide!
You're playing semantics way too hard. I can't put a price tag or a proper concept on the value of mine or anyone's life. Semantics? Over which word's definition are we debating? You now freely concede that life is not invaluable, neither your own nor anyone else's. Although you may lack the fortitude (or simply the patience) to perform the calculations, others do not. Using the article linked in the original post as an example, the Chinese government determined that the value of the life of the Briton was insufficient in comparison to his crime. Now, you can disagree with their valuation, and there's plenty of debate to be had along those lines, but you cannot simply dismiss their decision outright. There are many salient arguments against the death penalty, but the supposed infinite value of life is not one of them. No single person would think it fair if a government executed them for having 4 kilos of Heroin. If they did I'd have to think them a bit loopy. It's just easier to stomach because a mostly faceless government is doing it. Faceless mob mentality, nothing justifiable about it, the argument is in a circle.
uhh it's perfect fair do you even know what the opium wars were? and that there are HUGE SIGNS (in english) in every chinese airport saying "DRUG SMUGGLING IS PUNISHABLE BY DEAD PENALTY
|
(^ Never saw one of those signs when I was in China.)
The golden rule is the basis for all of normative morality.
It's easy to say "death penalty for murderers!" if you have good confidence that you will never be tried for murder. (That would be overconfidence, since innocents get tried and even convicted all the time.) You cannot apply the golden rule here because you can't identify with a murderer. So you have to generalize it. If you are tried for anything, a small crime or a big one, would you want the punishment to match the crime that you are committing? Yes. Would you take comfort in the knowledge that your punishment won't be cruel or inhuman? Yes.
So, article 5 is established.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
This is something everyone can agree to.
As for the nature of governments: a government does not represent the people. Not even a democratic government even remotely accurately represents the collective sentiments of the people. And you shouldn't want that either. It's not a government's job to do so. If the majority of the population wants to have all Muslims executed, then the government should still not oblige, since it would be violating the right to life of the Muslims. A government's job is to protect the rights and liberties of the individuals entrusted to it.
It is the responsibility of the Chinese lawmakers to make just law, making sure that no punishment is cruel or inhuman. Death penalty for drug trafficking is cruel and inhuman. Regardless of whether a majority of the population wants the drug runner dead or no.
By the way, I would be in favour of changing the law in response to international pressure, but this man still needs to be tried and sentenced under the old law, so the drug runner is (should be) lost to us whatever the result of the debate.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
lol thats hilarious
"diu lai no mo hai" -> well its kind of wrong romanization of the phrase but it means fuck your mothers vagina lol
|
Phrujbaz, you're starting to sound like a broken record here. We understood you the first time. I just don't think anyone agreed with you. Reiterating yourself isn't very persuasive.
P.S. He wasn't a citizen of China. You seem to forget this fact. And citizens forfeit their rights when they break the law. Hence the point of making a distinction between law-abiding and criminal. He had a trial. They gave him his rights until the trial proved him guilty.
|
|
|
On January 01 2010 22:32 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Phrujbaz, you're starting to sound like a broken record here. We understood you the first time. I just don't think anyone agreed with you. Reiterating yourself isn't very persuasive.
That's not fair. It may contain many of the same empty assertions, but now that his 'collective morality' has fallen apart, he's run to just plain normative morality.
|
On January 01 2010 22:34 Spinfusor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 22:32 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Phrujbaz, you're starting to sound like a broken record here. We understood you the first time. I just don't think anyone agreed with you. Reiterating yourself isn't very persuasive. That's not fair. It may contain many of the same assertions, but now that his 'collective morality' has fallen apart, he's run to just plain normative morality.
Ah gotcha. Sorry then. I retract my point. Phrujbaz has moved the goal posts so to speak.
|
Am I just becoming a joke here? LOL
I'm serial guys. Super duper serial!
|
The fact that some country didn't abolished death penalty just blows my mind.
Middle Age morons.
|
Should have just put him away for a long while -.- death penalty is so wrong T_T
|
On December 31 2009 14:22 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 13:34 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Not everyone can claim an illness and wave off all responsibility for their actions.
The only thing that disturbs me is that you get the death penalty for heroine. Imagine in the US if we executed someone for this? The international community would be in hysteria. But China does what China wants, I guess. It's totally different in Asian countries. Do you know how expensive for heroine in China? More than USD 300 per gram, 4000 grams heroine can easily destroy hundreds of family in China. In China, if you bring heroine more than 50 grams one time, you can get death penalty. I have to say if Akmal kill one Chinese in China, he would probably escape from death penalty.
So he should be blamed if people use the drugs?
"Yeah it's my dealer's fault if I'm addicted, not mine"
You take the drugs, you make decisions for yourself, YOU are RESPONSIBLE for your own actions (i know responsability is so hard, much better when mommy government tells you what you should or shouldnt do)
I have no pity for any of these "hundreds of destroyed families in China", individuals make choices for themselves.
As for the case at hand, well, not much more to say than China showing with it's still considered a 3rd world country by people in the west. Barbaric treatment of a mentally ill person is really nothing compared to the kind of atrocities their governments perform on behalf of their people.
|
On December 31 2009 14:47 Superiorwolf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 14:44 Valentine wrote:
Hm, it just seems so insane to execute over drug trafficking. Maybe that's just me =/ well if something like the british and their opium could do what it did to china every country has to make stringent laws - get the fuck out or you'll die anything less and an invasion of drugs could result if the circumstances became conducive enough
Again, no one is forcing anybody to take drugs. You honestly think it wouldnt be availible anyways? They'd grow opium within their own borders anyways. Jesus you guys have really no clue how the drug market works, do ya?
Scary scary evil drugs forcing themselves up your nose, right.
Can you say brainwashed generation?
|
On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves.
Of course, that is the mentally ill guy's fault. He went to each house, one by one, to make sure everyone was getting addicted... He fed them the drugs himself, against their own will.
Seriously, do you guys ever think past your pre-conceived brainwash-induced hate of drugs? You don't fucking wake up one morning and go "Oh shit let's start doing heroin".... The people who wouldve consumed it already do and will keep doing so, regardless of how much torture you want to inflict on this mentally ill man. Again, Chinese barbarians at work. Blame the foreigners for your problems lol.
|
On January 01 2010 23:23 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Of course, that is the mentally ill guy's fault. He went to each house, one by one, to make sure everyone was getting addicted... He fed them the drugs himself, against their own will. Seriously, do you guys ever think past your pre-conceived brainwash-induced hate of drugs? You don't fucking wake up one morning and go "Oh shit let's start doing heroin".... The people who wouldve consumed it already do and will keep doing so, regardless of how much torture you want to inflict on this mentally ill man. Again, Chinese barbarians at work. Blame the foreigners for your problems lol.
Have you ever taught of suicide? Well many people do, because their lives are horrible. Many people start using drugs instead of killing themselves, to not think about their problems and such. They don't expect to be addicted. Of course, it is the persons fault but its the grower/dealer who is behind all of it.
|
On January 01 2010 00:12 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:27 Fontong wrote: It's interesting to see what ordinary Chinese citizens are saying on the discussion boards. Most of these websites are state-controlled and subject to censorship but overwhelmingly the comments on those discussion sites are supportive of the Chinese government's decision. Well that just makes no sense at all! That's not Chinese censorship of the comments, that's just Chinese people hating foreigners. I wholeheartedly support the execution! 30 minute trial because they don't feel like wasting time on a retard! lol!
in after barbarian dog eater
hope your whole family gets a 30 minute trial and execution, maybe you'd feel different then?
|
On January 01 2010 23:38 KennigitsABaller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 23:23 reit wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Of course, that is the mentally ill guy's fault. He went to each house, one by one, to make sure everyone was getting addicted... He fed them the drugs himself, against their own will. Seriously, do you guys ever think past your pre-conceived brainwash-induced hate of drugs? You don't fucking wake up one morning and go "Oh shit let's start doing heroin".... The people who wouldve consumed it already do and will keep doing so, regardless of how much torture you want to inflict on this mentally ill man. Again, Chinese barbarians at work. Blame the foreigners for your problems lol. Have you ever taught of suicide? Well many people do, because their lives are horrible. Many people start using drugs instead of killing themselves, to not think about their problems and such. They don't expect to be addicted. Of course, it is the persons fault but its the grower/dealer who is behind all of it.
Not really, it's a market. The dealers and growers arent evil geniuses with plans to get everyone addicted. Theres is a demand, they offer. Isn't that the system we're taught to love and worship? Drug trafficking is capitalism at it's best. If there wasnt any demand, there wouldnt be drug dealers. Stop blaming businessmen, start blaming consumers. It is after all a democratic capitalism, where we vote with our dollars.
Seriously though, legalize it already and we'd solve 90% of the problem. It's such a no-brainer, but the dumb effing masses are so deeply brainwashed (and some of them just plain stupid), that they never do any research. Intellectual laziness leads to the public supporting the war on drugs and such ridiculous ideas.
|
Barbarian dog eater? Middle-age morons? Really?
I thought we could do better than this
|
On January 01 2010 23:43 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 23:38 KennigitsABaller wrote:On January 01 2010 23:23 reit wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Of course, that is the mentally ill guy's fault. He went to each house, one by one, to make sure everyone was getting addicted... He fed them the drugs himself, against their own will. Seriously, do you guys ever think past your pre-conceived brainwash-induced hate of drugs? You don't fucking wake up one morning and go "Oh shit let's start doing heroin".... The people who wouldve consumed it already do and will keep doing so, regardless of how much torture you want to inflict on this mentally ill man. Again, Chinese barbarians at work. Blame the foreigners for your problems lol. Have you ever taught of suicide? Well many people do, because their lives are horrible. Many people start using drugs instead of killing themselves, to not think about their problems and such. They don't expect to be addicted. Of course, it is the persons fault but its the grower/dealer who is behind all of it. Not really, it's a market. The dealers and growers arent evil geniuses with plans to get everyone addicted. Theres is a demand, they offer. Isn't that the system we're taught to love and worship? Drug trafficking is capitalism at it's best. If there wasnt any demand, there wouldnt be drug dealers. Stop blaming businessmen, start blaming consumers. It is after all a democratic capitalism, where we vote with our dollars. Seriously though, legalize it already and we'd solve 90% of the problem. It's such a no-brainer, but the dumb effing masses are so deeply brainwashed (and some of them just plain stupid), that they never do any research. Intellectual laziness leads to the public supporting the war on drugs and such ridiculous ideas.
So, if their is a group of people demanding Nuclear Bombs, we should give it to them eh?
|
Reit is triple posting, followed by double posting, with caps lock on, calling Chinese people 3rd world barbarian dog-eaters, Middle-age morons, hope your family gets executed in 30 mins so you agree with my opinion. All as a 41 post user. Have I missed anything?
P.S. If you are responsible for your own actions, then the drug trafficker is responsible for his. He tried to run 4 kilos past the Chinese border and got kilt for it. It has nothing to do with your impassioned "legalize all drugs" campaign. Society does not agree with you. I'm sure you've got oodles of essays written by college stoners that talk about all the awesome increases in gov't tax revenues and concentration/happiness in citizens caused by drugs, but nobody cares. And it's not because we're a dumb effing mass that's deeply brainwashed. Rather, we've managed to make it through our lives without needing to lean on the crutch of mind-altering substances and don't understand why you can't either.
I'm sure if I was more intellectually active, I'd be busy snorting cocaine and shooting heroin in my dick. Sadly, I'd rather read this scientific journal on solid-state lasers for a story I'm writing :-S. But believe you me reit, if I had enough IQ to turn my life around, I would love to live in a drug-addled, intellectually industrious way, so that I too could ascend from that dumb effing mass of people who don't do drugs.
|
lol reit, so many trolls in this thread.
Look people, he's dead. Give it a rest.
Capital punishment is nothing new in Asia. Drug trafficking will sent you to your maker. Everyone knows that.
Morality my ass, the West needs to get use to the fact that you guys no longer runs the world.
I sorta agree with the capital punishment abolishment but why diss dog eating? that shit is goood.
|
On January 02 2010 00:51 haduken wrote:
lol reit, so many trolls in this thread.
Look people, he's dead. Give it a rest.
Capital punishment is nothing new in Asia. Drug trafficking will sent you to your maker. Everyone knows that.
Morality my ass, the West needs to get use to the fact that you guys no longer runs the world.
I sorta agree with the capital punishment abolishment but why diss dog eating? that shit is goood.
Dog is quite repulsive in my culture.
|
On January 02 2010 00:52 KennigitsABaller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 00:51 haduken wrote:
lol reit, so many trolls in this thread.
Look people, he's dead. Give it a rest.
Capital punishment is nothing new in Asia. Drug trafficking will sent you to your maker. Everyone knows that.
Morality my ass, the West needs to get use to the fact that you guys no longer runs the world.
I sorta agree with the capital punishment abolishment but why diss dog eating? that shit is goood. Dog is quite repulsive in my culture.
That's because you're not using soy sauce. Kikkoman makes a world of difference.
|
Bipolar? More like batshit insane. Into China of all places.. oooohh, he saw it coming, and got what he deserved.
|
What's so nasty about eating dogs... it's just another animal, like you or me ~_~
|
On January 02 2010 01:28 TwilightStar wrote:
What's so nasty about eating dogs... it's just another animal, like you or me ~_~
So I guess its kinda ok If we ate each other now wouldn't it?
|
On January 01 2010 23:39 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 00:12 synapse wrote:On December 31 2009 15:27 Fontong wrote: It's interesting to see what ordinary Chinese citizens are saying on the discussion boards. Most of these websites are state-controlled and subject to censorship but overwhelmingly the comments on those discussion sites are supportive of the Chinese government's decision. Well that just makes no sense at all! That's not Chinese censorship of the comments, that's just Chinese people hating foreigners. I wholeheartedly support the execution! 30 minute trial because they don't feel like wasting time on a retard! lol! in after barbarian dog eater hope your whole family gets a 30 minute trial and execution, maybe you'd feel different then?
TTTTTTroll. If you actually fell this way, go dignify your sense of justice by bringing 40 kilos of heroin into China and going "what now, bitches". We'll uh.... see what happens... Who knows, your actions and your words might open up their minds and free the country from that barbaric culture. Or.... you get executed... you know.. But I say worth it, you should try tomorrow.
|
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.
|
On January 01 2010 23:46 uriel- wrote:Barbarian dog eater? Middle-age morons? Really? I thought we could do better than this
What the hell do you want to do better? Discuss if it's wrong or right to kill people?
|
Even if this is not at all as disturbing as the Liu Xiaobo sentece it makes me sick. I wonder if these threads should be closed though because they are all the same to me. I just feel like hiding in the world of SC instead of trying to understand this barbaric world. TT
|
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.
|
On January 02 2010 02:34 Elroi wrote:
Even if this is not at all as disturbing as the Liu Xiaobo sentece it makes me sick. I wonder if these threads should be closed though because they are all the same to me. I just feel like hiding in the world of SC instead of trying to understand this barbaric world. TT
The world of SC where marines are criminals that get brainwashed, pumped full of drugs, and sent into combat to their inevitable deaths. Where protoss take even their cripples into battle and rip people apart with their minds. Where ravening hordes of zerg that shit purple poo all over everything, devour everything, and then pervert humans into crab-looking suicide bombers? Yeah man! Sounds heaps better XD
|
On January 02 2010 02:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 02:34 Elroi wrote:
Even if this is not at all as disturbing as the Liu Xiaobo sentece it makes me sick. I wonder if these threads should be closed though because they are all the same to me. I just feel like hiding in the world of SC instead of trying to understand this barbaric world. TT The world of SC where marines are criminals that get brainwashed, pumped full of drugs, and sent into combat to their inevitable deaths. Where protoss take even their cripples into battle and rip people apart with their minds. Where ravening hordes of zerg that shit purple poo all over everything, devour everything, and then pervert humans into crab-looking suicide bombers? Yeah man! Sounds heaps better XD
lol.. with the little exception that it's all a game..?
|
On January 02 2010 00:51 haduken wrote:
lol reit, so many trolls in this thread.
Look people, he's dead. Give it a rest.
Capital punishment is nothing new in Asia. Drug trafficking will sent you to your maker. Everyone knows that.
Morality my ass, the West needs to get use to the fact that you guys no longer runs the world.
I sorta agree with the capital punishment abolishment but why diss dog eating? that shit is goood.
Don't really care about dog eating, was just trying to show the guy how blatantly fucking retarded and racist his comment was.
Drug trafficking will only send you to your maker if you're at the bottom of the food chain. The people that do it to survive are those who are put to death. Their bosses, the people who will find a replacement for this poor soul your government massacred, will never face justice, as most of them occupy positions of power, whether in the public or private space.
Drug dealing, again, is a market. Who do you think profits from this? The dude who got executed? Think he wouldve made millions on the "suffering" of Chinese addicts? Fuck no. On the other hand, I wouldnt be surprised if some of the commies that run the Chinese state silver lined their pockets with heroin money.
The funny thing is, if he was your brother, you'd be tearing your shirts off, screaming at the injustice. But since it's some random bloke from the UK that you've never met or known, it's ok to kill him.
Kinda like that other retard poster who said it was ok to kill a few innocents. Wonder what he'd think if it was his mother eh?
|
On January 02 2010 02:42 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 02:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 02 2010 02:34 Elroi wrote:
Even if this is not at all as disturbing as the Liu Xiaobo sentece it makes me sick. I wonder if these threads should be closed though because they are all the same to me. I just feel like hiding in the world of SC instead of trying to understand this barbaric world. TT The world of SC where marines are criminals that get brainwashed, pumped full of drugs, and sent into combat to their inevitable deaths. Where protoss take even their cripples into battle and rip people apart with their minds. Where ravening hordes of zerg that shit purple poo all over everything, devour everything, and then pervert humans into crab-looking suicide bombers? Yeah man! Sounds heaps better XD lol.. with the little exception that it's all a game..?
You forget that what we think is the "real world" may be all a game too! A HAH! Got you there!
|
On January 02 2010 02:43 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 00:51 haduken wrote:
lol reit, so many trolls in this thread.
Look people, he's dead. Give it a rest.
Capital punishment is nothing new in Asia. Drug trafficking will sent you to your maker. Everyone knows that.
Morality my ass, the West needs to get use to the fact that you guys no longer runs the world.
I sorta agree with the capital punishment abolishment but why diss dog eating? that shit is goood. The funny thing is, if he was your brother, you'd be tearing your shirts off, screaming at the injustice. But since it's some random bloke from the UK that you've never met or known, it's ok to kill him. Kinda like that other retard poster who said it was ok to kill a few innocents. Wonder what he'd think if it was his mother eh?
In general I agree with what you said in your post... But I just wanted to point out to you that we are only having this debate because it's a guy from Britain that was executed.
On January 02 2010 02:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:
You forget that what we think is the "real world" may be all a game too! A HAH! Got you there!
Yeah you owned me 
|
Dude tried to smuggle 5kg of drugs into China.
China law states that drug trafficing is punishable by death.
What's all the fuss about? That he was mentally ill? How ill? Ill enough to not get prosecuted or not ill enough so that someone would actually entrust this amount of drugs to him?
Edit: If it was my brother caught for trafficing drugs into China... Well, he'd probably deserve that.
|
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.
|
It's ok because it is a reasonable law, not because China has it. If you don't think it's ok, then too bad. At least 99% of Chinese will agree with this law and support the death penalty of heroin trafficking.
|
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.
|
I've always thought that the insanity plea was ridiculous and has no place in our courts. Even if they are insane, why bother keeping them alive with taxpayer money? It would be nothing but a drag on society. A crime is a crime; the law may be wrong or unfair sometimes and could need a reevaluation or a reinterpretation by a court, but in most cases, it's very clear if a behavior must be punished or not. I've never understood why a life sentence is better than the death penalty. They get to subsist on taxpayer money but they rot in a jail cell, to do nothing productive until they expire. Some states don't allow the death penalty though. I've always been amused by the fact that the same people that oppose the death penalty and abortion support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the fact that these wars lead to many more deaths than the other two put together.
The diplomatic thing to do was to send him back to Britain to be tried, since he is a British national, but as the person was committing a crime in China, China did have the right to try and execute him. Even if he didn't know that drug trafficking was illegal in China, I'm sure he knew that what he was doing wasn't legal.
"Justice has to be just." What is just? It is merely the opinion of those in the judicial branch, within the scope provided by the legislative branch.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 01 2010 11:45 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 11:41 yhnmk wrote:On January 01 2010 11:39 TwoToneTerran wrote:
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.
If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again. lol, you can want revenge and expect extremely harsh punishments but still do it in a calculated and fair manner. For example: The American death penalty. :O it completely syncs up with law. Law aint just about rehabilitation or prevention, it is also about punishment. Its been like that for centuries across the globe. And many philosophers justified the death penalty on the basis of revenge alone. It's not punishment. Punishment is meant to teach a lesson. Imprisoning a thief for ten years is punishment because he can learn from the consequence of his action. There's no learning from being killed. Also, don't get me started on the American Death Penalty. If you want a less 'impassioned' reason against the death penalty, there should be no death penalty because there's no infallible court system to prove 100% innocence and guilt. No matter how hard you try, you will end up killing innocent people just like how we have imprisoned innocent people. State sanctioned murder is no less abhorrent then personally committed murder. By its own logic, all supporters should be put to death for being absolutely involved in cold blooded murder once an innocent man has been falsely found guilty. But that's no the case. Why? Because it's the antithesis of law. there's no system for fallibility in the death penalty short of not killing the convict off the bat so he may later be absolved. It's dumb, senseless, and does nothing that imprisonment wouldn't besides sate subconscious bloodlust.
Not at all. There are times when it is completely obvious, with overwhelming evidence that someone is guilty and deserving of the death penalty. Of course, the system isn't perfect, but I would rather have a few innocents for the removal of many guilty than letting them all off and maybe even free to commit more crimes, just because you might be wrong.
"3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less. "
Agree. Rather than second chances for people who commit crimes like murder or rape, they should just be killed before they can do it again. Leniency is overrated.
On January 01 2010 13:35 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2010 13:33 Draconizard wrote:On January 01 2010 13:15 n.DieJokes wrote:
Wait, can we get back to the fact that they sentence a man to death for drug trafficking. That's insane, how is there even a discussion going on, they sentenced a man to [u]death[/u for drug trafficking! And this guy was an international citizen with questionable mental status but they just couldn't refrain from giving the motherfucking death penalty... for drug trafficking. I'm going to keep repeating that because if that doesn't alarm your sensibilities you don't understand the value of human. Heroin is bad, no disagreements here, but any argument where selling it should be punished by death is unbelievably flawed And what precisely is the "value of human [sic]"? Who or what defines such value? No one truly can (as any person views their own life as invaluable, and thus has a skewed premise), and since human lives obviously have some intrinsic value that we can't properly equate due to personal bias, the fairest assumption is that human life is all invaluable.
Fair is also overrated and is impossible to have anyway. All human life is NOT invaluable, this is a silly premise to accept. A doctor is worth more than a janitor. Steven Hawkings is more valuable than a homeless person on the street. No matter how you may feel about the morals of this kind of situation, the fact is that the value of a life can be quantified and frequently is, especially in situations where someone dies and their closest living relatives are compensated.
|
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?
Death penalty is the right option for China over not having death penalty, not because it's popular opinion, but because it is demonstrably the right option for China to have at this moment.
|
On January 02 2010 06:01 ghostWriter wrote:
I've always been amused by the fact that the same people that oppose the death penalty and abortion support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the fact that these wars lead to many more deaths than the other two put together.
are there even people who oppose both the death penalty and abortions? most people against abortions are pro death penalty right?
|
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.
Unfortunately it's their country and they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want to the people within it.
Don't like it? Don't traffic drugs into a country that's notorious for killing people for it.
|
On January 02 2010 06:48 johnnyspazz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 06:01 ghostWriter wrote:
I've always been amused by the fact that the same people that oppose the death penalty and abortion support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the fact that these wars lead to many more deaths than the other two put together. are there even people who oppose both the death penalty and abortions? most people against abortions are pro death penalty right?
This just makes their views even more ironic.
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.
I'd just like to quote this post to highlight the sheer pretentiousness of the poster. Clearly he has all the answers (or at least most of them) and sees the world with heightened clarity compared to us lowly "sheep".
|
On January 02 2010 00:51 haduken wrote:
Morality my ass, the West needs to get use to the fact that you guys no longer runs the world.
Eh, why is this something relevant, lol (not just saying to you). This same debate could be had with quite a lot of other countries, is there really an east/west thing? I guess that is all that can keep the thread going since the topic itself is a pretty tired cliche debate topic. Kind of sad to see this always happen even on TL.
|
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.
The very morality, and moral laws you're applying here are a matter of popular opinion, western popular opinion which the chinese do not agree with, nor do I as a matter of fact even though i was educated in the western way. And I completely fail to se how you can demonstrate that someone's ethical codex or worldview is flawed if it doesn't contain logical inconsistencies.
On a sidenote, there's nothing more that i would like than the oportunity to sit and talk to someone who is educated and is a critical thinker to explain these notions of "intristic human rights" and the objective and universal "right" and "wrong", because i seem to completely fail to understand them.
|
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).
|
United States47024 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On January 02 2010 09:41 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:04 leetchaos wrote: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
Except that it wasn't new years.
|
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. Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:36 Myrkul 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). 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.
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.
|
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
|
On January 02 2010 09:41 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:04 leetchaos wrote: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
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?
|
On January 02 2010 08:39 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 02:38 reit wrote: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.
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.
|
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?
|
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:39 EmeraldSparks wrote:On January 02 2010 02:38 reit wrote: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. 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.
|
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:39 EmeraldSparks wrote:On January 02 2010 02:38 reit wrote: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. 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.
|
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:39 EmeraldSparks wrote:On January 02 2010 02:38 reit wrote: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. 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.
|
On January 02 2010 12:32 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:39 EmeraldSparks wrote:On January 02 2010 02:38 reit wrote: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. 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.
|
we have our very own aristotle here...
|
On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul 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. On January 02 2010 08:36 Myrkul 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). 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. 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.
|
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.
|
|
|
Just read through this entire thread. Wow.
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)
|
Nice big wall of text. Sif anyone is going to read it.
|
On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul 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. On January 02 2010 08:36 Myrkul 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). 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. 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.
|
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.
|
Death penalty by lethal injection is too humane for drug trafficking shitstains.
Death penalty by starvation, that I could go for
|
like it or not china already is leading nation on earth. Even usa has HUGE debt there. So if someone breaks law in china and they decide to execute him, they don't give a shit about some protests, because they dont have to.
|
On January 02 2010 21:56 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul 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. On January 02 2010 08:36 Myrkul 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). 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. 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.
I see that i'm not getting through, IMO most people who have commited a nasty crime do not think they did something wrong, if you think you should not do something then you do not do it. And I do not agree that most of the people who commited a crime think they deserve any kind of punishment, they just look at the laws of a state as a "force of nature" that should be avoided, like if you play with fire you get burned kind of thing, they don't think that the fire is fair. But then again we're now guessing about criminal minds and motives so no point in discussing further.
Basically not everyone agrees with the Golden rule as the prime moral basis for a country's laws and everything else, and there is absolutely no logical reason why they should. And your "logical extrapolation" is not as evident and clear-cut as you seem to think it is, because the Golden rule in it's negative and positive version has always had it's critics among prominent intellectuals, and a lot more can be said about the logical and philosophical implications of the golden rule itself, and especially this version of it that you're defending. This point has been stated in multiple posts, including all of my previous ones, you simply do not seem to understand that not everyone accepts the golden rule as a basis for laws, and there is no logical reason stating that they should I am now repeating myselfand i do not plan to do it any longer, if you do not adress the points that phlamez, HeartofTofu and I have made about the relativity of the Golden rule as a moral concept then we have nothing more to talk about.
|
On January 02 2010 22:20 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Every action that I willingly do, I consider the right thing to do, otherwise I would not be doing it. If someone else or a whole country for that matter thinks that what I did was a crime and I should be punished for it I would disagree, so No i would not have the punishment meet my crime since i would not consider it a crime in the first place. I do not see any middle ground between accepting all laws that a state implements, or none. And I do not understand the concept of a "reasonable, not cruel and inhumane punishment" since there will always be a person who thinks a punishment unreasonable, because he obviously thinks that his actions/crime were a reasonable thing to do, otherwise he would not have done them.
|
I'm pretty sure most criminals know what they're doing is wrong but just don't care. They'd call the punishment unreasonable just because they don't want it to happen to them but they know they deserve it.
|
On January 02 2010 23:52 Myrkul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 22:20 Phrujbaz wrote: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. Every action that I willingly do, I consider the right thing to do, otherwise I would not be doing it. If someone else or a whole country for that matter thinks that what I did was a crime and I should be punished for it I would disagree, so No i would not have the punishment meet my crime since i would not consider it a crime in the first place. I do not see any middle ground between accepting all laws that a state implements, or none. And I do not understand the concept of a "reasonable, not cruel and inhumane punishment" since there will always be a person who thinks a punishment unreasonable, because he obviously thinks that his actions/crime were a reasonable thing to do, otherwise he would not have done them.
The way I understand the golden rule is that you have to put yourself in the position of the other party, and then decide what is fair. As an executioner, it's easy to say the death penalty is fair. Someone who believes he will never be tried for drug trafficking can much more easily agree to the death penalty than someone who thinks the justice system is very fallible and he might be framed. Since you will have biased opinions based on the likelihood someone believes he will be tried for the crime, the golden rule doesn't work here. That's why we have to agree on some general principle. Such as: punishments should never be cruel or inhuman and always reasonably match the crime being committed. I think this is a general principle (based on the golden rule) that we can all agree on.
How to apply that principle to the current situation is up to the lawmakers, and we can agree or disagree with their decision. I personally don't think they've applied that principle correctly in this case, since the death penalty for drug trafficking seems cruel and inhuman to me.
|
On January 02 2010 22:57 psion0011 wrote:Death penalty by lethal injection is too humane for drug trafficking shitstains. Death penalty by starvation, that I could go for
Don't I love it when people are so eager to give up their own freedoms for revenge or stability. Any sensible human would never waive humanity's right to fair and humane punishment and fair trials.
|
The death penalty in China isn't really news. I think the primary idea of this article is how flip flopped the situation with England and China is now. Fifty years ago, Brits in China have been getting away with pretty much damn well everything in terms of crimes due to their political clout, military power and their occupation. Now China's reaction is more "LOLEngland?".
|
there are a lot of problems with subjective moral theory in philosophy... i mean if everyone in a country thinks its ok to kill innocent people to please others, then its ok? is there no room for other countries to step in and say hey, your moral compass is fucked up?
not sure if I'm understanding the posts correctly but I think some of you are advocating a subjective moral stand, which has a boat load of logical issues.
but thing is, there isn't one good moral theory I mean, considering this is an ongoing debate in philosophy itself, its just not practical to argue whether what China did is right or wrong based on one moral principle.
My take on the issue is, China did what they felt was necessary to do, its their law and they will enforce the punishment on anyone British or not. The action of drug trafficking clearly pose a direct threat especially in such large quantities. So for the most part, there really isn't much logical evidence to argue against China's decision to execute him.
|
Don't worry, Riet is just a troll or a arrogant idiot.
|
On December 31 2009 19:09 meegrean wrote:
I support China's decision to execute drug dealers. This is a good example.
DIE DRUG TRAFFICKERS!
If you want to speak of responsibility; then it lies upon the person who chooses freely to use the drug. When you outlaw drugs, then you create a situation where the price is so expensive that it fuels the development of criminal enterprises and economically crushes its users so fast they enter the point of no return 100x quicker. In addition, if the price is out of grasp, then the users resort to criminal activity to acquire it. This man shouldn't be executed, he shouldn't even be incarcerated.
Most of the consequences of drug use in society are created by the fact they are outlawed by governments, which spurs the public opinion to desire them outlawed, creating a cycle. If these drugs were legal (and untaxed) then they would cost as much as your laundry detergent. Then, you can begin to address the real problem, educating your people of the danger of addiction to a mood altering substance (and if they choose to use; how to do so properly.)
You claim to support these policies to protect would be drug users and their families; but your policies are the cause of their destruction. I assume we all know we could easily afford and obtain heroin with 99% success rate if we tried, so are your policies really factoring in to diminishing desire to use (or is something else stopping you?) If it cost 20 cents instead of 20 dollars and was 100% success would you suddenly use?
|
On January 03 2010 02:11 BabyRhino wrote:
there are a lot of problems with subjective moral theory in philosophy... i mean if everyone in a country thinks its ok to kill innocent people to please others, then its ok? is there no room for other countries to step in and say hey, your moral compass is fucked up?
not sure if I'm understanding the posts correctly but I think some of you are advocating a subjective moral stand, which has a boat load of logical issues.
but thing is, there isn't one good moral theory I mean, considering this is an ongoing debate in philosophy itself, its just not practical to argue whether what China did is right or wrong based on one moral principle.
My take on the issue is, China did what they felt was necessary to do, its their law and they will enforce the punishment on anyone British or not. The action of drug trafficking clearly pose a direct threat especially in such large quantities. So for the most part, there really isn't much logical evidence to argue against China's decision to execute him.
Hello USA!
|
United States43820 Posts
|
United States43820 Posts
On January 03 2010 02:10 KissBlade wrote:
The death penalty in China isn't really news. I think the primary idea of this article is how flip flopped the situation with England and China is now. Fifty years ago, Brits in China have been getting away with pretty much damn well everything in terms of crimes due to their political clout, military power and their occupation. Now China's reaction is more "LOLEngland?".
I think you have the 1960s confused with the 1860s. The primary idea of this article is how weird the situation is now because only 74 years ago everyone would have gone "LOL Japan!!!".
He was found guilty after a fair trial and sentenced within the law. If the trial had been rigged then this'd be a serious incident but I really can't see the issue here. Sure, if he'd been tried in England he wouldn't be dead but that's not because he's innocent, it's because our justice system has a different set of values. He committed an offence within China and that makes him fair game for them.
There's no real outcry in England beyond the foreign office requesting extradition which is what they do for every imprisoned British national.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
QQ
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions? Or certain acts have certain consequences?
Medical illness my ass, shouldn't have been trafficing drugs. Especially in China. WTF was this guy thinking?
RIP Mr Sheik
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Canada and USA needs some Chinese medicine.
We have a few million criminals here that need lethal injection.
|
On January 02 2010 23:43 Myrkul wrote:
I see that i'm not getting through, IMO most people who have commited a nasty crime do not think they did something wrong, if you think you should not do something then you do not do it. And I do not agree that most of the people who commited a crime think they deserve any kind of punishment, they just look at the laws of a state as a "force of nature" that should be avoided, like if you play with fire you get burned kind of thing, they don't think that the fire is fair. But then again we're now guessing about criminal minds and motives so no point in discussing further.
It's funny how you say I'm completely missing the point when you're completely missing my point.
The question isn't should we ask people who commit crimes what their punishment should be. The question is, if you hypothetically commit a crime yourself in the future, what do you believe should happen to you and anyone else?
Let's assume that, in the future, I kill a man. Whether it be a cold calculated murder or an anger based motive, I'm someone who found the only option available to myself was murder. Right now I can honestly say that if I did something like that, I'd understand and even want myself to be imprisoned for life. Whatever my justification was wasn't a good one, as it resulted in murder and that, by any merit, is a heinous crime.
You obviously shouldn't ask me what I want my punishment to be directly after I commit the crime -- the bias then is insurmountable. But thinking, logically, if I did commit the crime in the future, what do I think I or anyone should face as a consequence?
THAT'S why it's a logical extrapolation. It's not a moral basis. It's a universally fair way to examine what a person and, in a grander scope, a country's reflection of consequences.
Basically not everyone agrees with the Golden rule as the prime moral basis for a country's laws and everything else, and there is absolutely no logical reason why they should. And your "logical extrapolation" is not as evident and clear-cut as you seem to think it is, because the Golden rule in it's negative and positive version has always had it's critics among prominent intellectuals, and a lot more can be said about the logical and philosophical implications of the golden rule itself, and especially this version of it that you're defending. This point has been stated in multiple posts, including all of my previous ones, you simply do not seem to understand that not everyone accepts the golden rule as a basis for laws, and there is no logical reason stating that they should I am now repeating myselfand i do not plan to do it any longer, if you do not adress the points that phlamez, HeartofTofu and I have made about the relativity of the Golden rule as a moral concept then we have nothing more to talk about.
Rofl, what is this? There are "prominent intellectuals" who criticize this? Really? Cite me some. I want some honest to goodness head honchos of philosophical discussion. You make the big claim, back it up. I never claimed to have the philosophical community backing my statement, but if you want to use something so catchall in an argument, then the least you could do is cite a few sources. And I hope you don't just google "philosophical opposition to the Golden Rule," because that'd be a bit too obvious and a bit to telling that you're pulling this from nowhere.
Also, there are no implications to the Golden Rule. It works entirely on a logical and hypothetical premise that, for the most part, never comes into play, as most people aren't major criminals. It serves merely as a true purpose to show what people actually want as a consequence when they're not acting under the guise of the populous/mob, because it's a hypothetical that works on their individuality moreso than their ability to be swayed by the mob and the human condition's trend towards emotional instability affecting judgment.
|
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.
|
On January 03 2010 02:00 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 22:57 psion0011 wrote:Death penalty by lethal injection is too humane for drug trafficking shitstains. Death penalty by starvation, that I could go for Don't I love it when people are so eager to give up their own freedoms for revenge or stability. Any sensible human would never waive humanity's right to fair and humane punishment and fair trials.
i don't really need the freedom to sell heroin but thanks anyways LOL
|
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.
|
On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 States43820 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.
|
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.
In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) everyone I've ever met is very for and not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. I know which is superior. If someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem. In China, I would feel powerless though. So it may not be a good idea to get on the governments "bad list" by speaking out, correct? So that may factor in to why everyone is clapping.
|
On January 03 2010 13:09 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote: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. In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) basically everyone is for not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. So I think I know which is superior. (I mean if someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem.)
K time for you to go away now. You fail on several fronts.
#1. You don't know much about the US gov't according to what you just said.
#2. You know absolutely nothing about China except what is fed to you by media. (I'm saying this based on what you've shared so far. I could be wrong.)
#3. You just claimed your way of life is superior. That's a dick move.
|
On January 03 2010 13:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:09 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote: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. In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) basically everyone is for not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. So I think I know which is superior. (I mean if someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem.) K time for you to go away now. You fail on several fronts. #1. You don't know much about the US gov't according to what you just said. #2. You know absolutely nothing about China except what is fed to you by media. (I'm saying this based on what you've shared so far. I could be wrong.) #3. You just claimed your way of life is superior. That's a dick move.
Yes, and I will say it again, having freedom is better than not having freedom. That is so crazy to you isn't it?
|
Depends. I'd personally rather live in a truly successfully marxist state than in the USA.
Just no Marxist state yet. :o
|
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context.
|
On January 03 2010 13:18 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Depends. I'd personally rather live in a truly successfully marxist state than in the USA.
Just no Marxist state yet. :o
LOL
Yeah, the difference is if everyone is free - then people like you have the freedom to choose to be told how to think, act, and speak however you wish (even if you want to waive that right and blindly follow allegiance to whoever you wish.) However, everyone else has their freedom too. So everyone wins! It's such a crazy concept really.
|
On January 03 2010 13:23 haduken wrote:
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context.
I knew this extreme was going to come up. Now, however much you want to you will never be able to have everything you want. No one can bend the rules of physics so you are free to magically fly or have someone who pays all your bills. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to say or think as you wish also?
My philosophy on ethics comes down to a concept of property. Laws should equally support every persons ability to protect their property. Our property includes our possessions, our bodies, and to a more limited extent our minds(harassment). Laws protect others from damaging(including stealing) said property. Freedom comes down to being able to do what you wish as long as you do not damage others' property.
No where in my philosophy are people required to give you money or bend physics.
|
To TwoToneTerran:
You have persuaded me, at least in the case of the US judicial system, that it is better to give people life imprisonment. I say this because in the economic sense, it is cheaper to house them for life than it is to pay all the legal costs of the process of hearing out appeals, etc etc. The death penalty is a very expensive legal process in the USA. And you're right, as long as we keep them permanently imprisoned, then society ends up with the same effect. So, don't feel your efforts have been wasted. I believe you have made me change my mind.
And yeah, I'm familiar with the DNA cases. My brother was working on several of those cases through the New York legal department as part of his yearly pro-bono work. Some messed up stuff going on there. A good example to bring up.
I think you do have a compelling argument in saying that we could just as easily imprison someone. I don't know enough about China's conditions to say whether it's as cheap for them to do the same. You are right in saying that life imprisonment allows more options than the death penalty and is a better solution for ALL eventualities.
So yeah, basically I am capitulating . You've convinced me. Your arguments are logical and I can't find fault with them. Maybe someone smarter than me and is for capital punishment can prove you wrong haha. I do think you have a good point about it mostly being an angry backlash from the populace though.
Still, while I think the death penalty can be done away with, I think in an overall sense, China was well within their rights to execute this man. Is it the "best" way? No. But it's understandable.
|
On January 03 2010 13:33 StorkHwaiting wrote:
To TwoToneTerran:
You have persuaded me,
FUCK YES
EAT THAT INTERNET I CONVINCED SOMEONE TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION FUCK YOU YOU DAMN ELECTRICAL INFORMATION INTERFACE BITCH
at least in the case of the US judicial system, that it is better to give people life imprisonment.
--er, well STILL COUNTS AS A WIN.
I say this because in the economic sense, it is cheaper to house them for life than it is to pay all the legal costs of the process of hearing out appeals, etc etc. The death penalty is a very expensive legal process in the USA. And you're right, as long as we keep them permanently imprisoned, then society ends up with the same effect. So, don't feel your efforts have been wasted. I believe you have made me change my mind. And yeah, I'm familiar with the DNA cases. My brother was working on several of those cases through the New York legal department as part of his yearly pro-bono work. Some messed up stuff going on there. A good example to bring up. I think you do have a compelling argument in saying that we could just as easily imprison someone. I don't know enough about China's conditions to say whether it's as cheap for them to do the same. You are right in saying that life imprisonment allows more options than the death penalty and is a better solution for ALL eventualities. So yeah, basically I am capitulating . You've convinced me. Your arguments are logical and I can't find fault with them. Maybe someone smarter than me and is for capital punishment can prove you wrong haha. I do think you have a good point about it mostly being an angry backlash from the populace though. Still, while I think the death penalty can be done away with, I think in an overall sense, China was well within their rights to execute this man. Is it the "best" way? No. But it's understandable.
Haha it's cool man. I'm a psychology major so I literally spend all day around all the philosophical types conversing about his kind of junk. This argument has been very well practiced!
Though, I was never arguing that China wasn't within their rights to punish him as their law system sees fit. I absolutely disagree with them but it definitely isn't my place to mouth off at an entire country as if I completely know their situation.
|
On January 03 2010 13:28 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:23 haduken wrote:
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context. I knew this extreme was going to come up. Now, however much you want to you will never be able to have everything you want. No one can bend the rules of physics so you are free to magically fly or have someone who pays all your bills. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to say or think as you wish also?
Dude, please shutup. Not every country in the world is America, where they got to genocidally wipe out all the native inhabitants, fill the entire thing with immigrants from England, and then gradually filter in a few bits and pieces of other ethnicities and carefully control where they settled, then inundate them with consumerist culture until they lost nearly all previous sense of national or cultural identity.
On top of that, isolate them geographically and strategically by having a country bordered by two oceans, peace-loving syrup farmers, and morally bankrupt drug barons that nobody in their right mind would ever ally with.
Not every nation has these demographics. That's why not every nation can afford to give their citizens unbridled access to tons of information and entertainment. It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. Because they're so addled and patriotic at that point, the only speech they'll voice is about dumb things like creationism, generic pharmaceuticals, and whether the 16 yr old down the street should be able to abort.
|
On January 03 2010 13:16 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 13:09 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote: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. In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) basically everyone is for not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. So I think I know which is superior. (I mean if someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem.) K time for you to go away now. You fail on several fronts. #1. You don't know much about the US gov't according to what you just said. #2. You know absolutely nothing about China except what is fed to you by media. (I'm saying this based on what you've shared so far. I could be wrong.) #3. You just claimed your way of life is superior. That's a dick move. Yes, and I will say it again, having freedom is better than not having freedom. That is so crazy to you isn't it?
So, you define freedom by the ability to be a tie-breaker in the odd case that the vote among the people of your state is exactly tied and your voice will decide? That if your state happens to be the one that decides this, and the vote is exactly even, AND nobody taints the vote (Florida?), then you might decide who is your near-omnipotent ruler? Or is it by the fact that you are allowed to say anything (like threatening the president while holding a gun outside the white house)? Or is it the fact that no one restricts your rights? Is it the fact that people can badmouth others on TV? You can shout "Obama sucks and is a communist son of a whore". Good for you. You also live in a country where the laws are as often as not decided by corporations, people's life savings go down the drain because some rich dudes play the stock market, where people like Donald Trump are heroes because everyone forgot how he fucked thousands and thousands of people up the ass and rich people are awesome, where teachers are treated like dirt and Paris Hilton like royalty. And you have nothing to do about it. Your opinions on the matter have no effect. You do NOT have the power to change this.
For the average Chinese person, life is about going to work, making sure that his family is well fed, has a nice house, etc. Same as anyone else. Their government, overall, is doing a fine job in developing their economy, taking care of medical care of it's people (much more so than the US), and has a lot of strong points. For most Chinese people, it doesn't interfere with life any more than the US government. Major companies do not change litigation by massive donations (like Microsoft, who was about to be split into smaller companies and then an election happened, the Attorney General was replaced, and their punishment was revised into giving free computers to schools - the only market Apple dominated). The crime rate is lower. People are safer, the level of education is rising steadily and by a very high rate as is the situation with the economy.
Defining freedom is a hard thing. Don't shout random slogans because a country has the common sense to say "wtf does manic-depressive behavior have to do with carrying 4kg of heroin? Does being extremely happy have any relation to this case? Does depression? No. As far as this case is concerned, he should be punished to the full extent of the law."
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 02 2010 08:08 TwoToneTerran wrote:
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.
There are really 2 discussions that I can see at work:
The "should the man have died?" discussion, which is what I feel this thread has reached, is pointless. Not because your argument is unsound, or because your view is insignificant, but because, given the nature of internet discussions on morality and ethics, very little headway is likely to be made by either side.
The "is there anything the family/British government should do about it?" discussion, is the other discussion, which is what I was addressing. The answer to that question, of course, is a resounding no. Regardless of whether the law is morally "right", there's no basis for creating an international hubbub over it. There's simply not a strong enough case in the defense of a drug trafficker for it. This isn't the 19th century anymore. If you're going to start a confrontation on the basis of a crime, you have to at least do a better job of looking like you've been victimized--and 4 kilos of heroin doesn't help you very much with that.
|
On January 03 2010 13:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:08 TwoToneTerran wrote:
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. There are really 2 discussions that I can see at work: The "should the man have died?" discussion, which is what I feel this thread has reached, is pointless. Not because your argument is unsound, or because your view is insignificant, but because, given the nature of internet discussions on morality and ethics, very little headway is likely to be made by either side.
On January 03 2010 13:38 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:33 StorkHwaiting wrote:
To TwoToneTerran:
You have persuaded me, FUCK YES EAT THAT INTERNET I CONVINCED SOMEONE TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION FUCK YOU YOU DAMN ELECTRICAL INFORMATION INTERFACE BITCH
8)
|
On January 03 2010 13:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:28 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 13:23 haduken wrote:
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context. I knew this extreme was going to come up. Now, however much you want to you will never be able to have everything you want. No one can bend the rules of physics so you are free to magically fly or have someone who pays all your bills. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to say or think as you wish also? Dude, please shutup. Not every country in the world is America, where they got to genocidally wipe out all the native inhabitants, fill the entire thing with immigrants from England, and then gradually filter in a few bits and pieces of other ethnicities and carefully control where they settled, then inundate them with consumerist culture until they lost nearly all previous sense of national or cultural identity. On top of that, isolate them geographically and strategically by having a country bordered by two oceans, peace-loving syrup farmers, and morally bankrupt drug barons that nobody in their right mind would ever ally with. Not every nation has these demographics. That's why not every nation can afford to give their citizens unbridled access to tons of information and entertainment. It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. Because they're so addled and patriotic at that point, the only speech they'll voice is about dumb things like creationism, generic pharmaceuticals, and whether the 16 yr old down the street should be able to abort.
I'm not arguing for the United States. I'm not even patriotic. I argue for certain ideas not flags.
|
To be fair, your values are intrinsically connected to your Flag.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 03 2010 13:42 TwoToneTerran wrote:
8)
I said very little headway, not none at all. The fact that the argument has only moved that far (seeing as only part of the argument was conceded) in the last 5 pages since my previous post only strengthens my point.
|
And only one person was turned over to the other side, and only partially at that, and only in a section of the argument mostly unrelated to the original topic. But maybe when we reach 500 we'll get a person completely converted from one side to the other.
@7Strife: Face it, the average Chinese person does not base his opinion of his or her government based on whether or not they are violating a certain American's sense of morality based on the idea that property is wholly inviolable and nothing else is the purview of the law. The idea that there exist Inviolable human rights to life that cannot be forfeited through any action or the idea that people who inject heroin are making decisions that to themselves are rational at the time and therefore neither people who search for it nor the people who provide this service should be coerced in any way; well, the average Chinese person could give less of a fuck
|
Everyone who isn't an anarchist has only the freedoms their government allows them. Freedom is also quite relative depending on perspective. For example, do we have the freedom to choose our President? Yes and no. Popular vote doesn't actually decide it, nor can we actually pick anyone Since there are strict limitations on who can be President. Similarly, do we have freedom to say whatever we want? Yes and no. CIA does alter particularly "sensitive" information on public domain like wikipedia, etc. I can go on further but you get my point.
Though I'm not sure why I would continue bothering to respond to people who clearly made new accounts to troll .
|
On January 03 2010 14:09 EmeraldSparks wrote:
And only one person was turned over to the other side, and only partially at that, and only in a section of the argument mostly unrelated to the original topic. But maybe when we reach 500 we'll get a person completely converted from one side to the other.
@7Strife: Face it, the average Chinese person does not base his opinion of his or her government based on whether or not they are violating a certain American's sense of morality based on the idea that property is wholly inviolable and nothing else is the purview of the law. The idea that there exist Inviolable human rights to life that cannot be forfeited through any action or the idea that people who inject heroin are making decisions that to themselves are rational at the time and therefore neither people who search for it nor the people who provide this service should be coerced in any way; well, the average Chinese person could give less of a fuck
I'm still in the lead! Eat it, internet!
|
Ladies ladies, stick to the topic. You guys are going way off into politics. Bringing 4kg of heroin into China is still really stupid, I don't believe he deserve much from the Chinese government anyway.
|
7Strife knows what's best for the Chinese people, and what they want, without ever having met an actual Chinese national.
That's pretty funny.
|
Wow this is pretty intense, and I dont even understand half the language in here. Time to find improve my English
|
On January 03 2010 13:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:
It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech.
The First Amendment was around a long time before those six decades of rampant consumerism. Your assertion is somewhat flawed
*edit* linkified in case someone doesn't know what I am talking about. Trying not to assume everyone knows everything about the US constitution
|
On January 03 2010 13:16 7Strife wrote:
[Yes, and I will say it again, having freedom is better than not having freedom. That is so crazy to you isn't it?
Having food, shelter, and peace of mind is better than not having it. Funny how all the actually Chinese/Asian people don't have any issue with the current situation (Full Disclosure: I'm CBC[Canadian-Born-Chinese]). Having lived in the States for five years, as well as frequent visits to China, I can personally say I'd rather live in China than America. Could go into a wall of text on this if you prefer.
On a note, America seems to love having lawyers and the type in charge, while China's Premier and President are Engineers by training. What does that tell you =P
|
On January 03 2010 20:47 Taku wrote:On a note, America seems to love having lawyers and the type in charge, while China's Premier and President are Engineers by training. What does that tell you =P
That it's OK to be censor slapped as long as the guy is an engineer?
|
On January 03 2010 20:47 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:16 7Strife wrote:
[Yes, and I will say it again, having freedom is better than not having freedom. That is so crazy to you isn't it? Having food, shelter, and peace of mind is better than not having it. Funny how all the actually Chinese/Asian people don't have any issue with the current situation (Full Disclosure: I'm CBC[Canadian-Born-Chinese]). Having lived in the States for five years, as well as frequent visits to China, I can personally say I'd rather live in China than America. Could go into a wall of text on this if you prefer. On a note, America seems to love having lawyers and the type in charge, while China's Premier and President are Engineers by training. What does that tell you =P
I am impressed.There are still people that can see beyond all the things that western media have been feeding them.
I feel sick about people that never been to countries like China and always start bashing these countries.
Actually living in China in many way is very comfortable. I've been living in Shanghai for a few years now and have nothing to complain
|
I don't agree with censorship, but you know, there really is more to life than whether or not I can access youtube and facebook. It's a minor annoyance, one that's easily circumvented through use of a VPN.
If you've ever been to China, then you'd know that it isn't a country where the citizens are constantly oppressed without any freedoms. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made about China and its government, but please have something to back it up that's a little more substantial than "but they don't have freedom!".
Personally, I find it ironic that the ones bashing China for brainwashing the masses are often the ones mindlessly following whatever western media tells them. I don't know how else to explain the people who criticize a country without having the slightest clue what life is like in said country.
Just because a country doesn't adopt western values doesn't mean that it's a miserable and barbaric place.
|
On January 03 2010 20:42 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:
It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. The First Amendment was around a long time before those six decades of rampant consumerism. Your assertion is somewhat flawed *edit* linkified in case someone doesn't know what I am talking about. Trying not to assume everyone knows everything about the US constitution
ROFL, Oh you mean that first amendment they had while owning slaves? Nice one, dude. That's also the first amendment where women still couldn't vote and only white male landowners had any say in anything.
I can google 20 different laws within a heartbeat that show certain forms of speech are curtailed or outright banned by the US government.
|
I again much prefer having more freedom than less freedom over my life. You claim this is a delusion of being brainwashed by America and call me a fool? It is not a result of being brainwashed. It is a universal desire of man to have control over their lives, choices, thoughts, etc. Even so, if a man wishes not to have freedom, then, in a free society he can choose to live such a way to choose whichever master he wishes. So freedom trumps not having freedom. Also, if you look, democratic countries have overwhelmingly higher wealth. In the east, you see amongst China, Hong Kong performing 10x more efficiently in a partial democracy. You also see, Japan, as the 2nd richest country in the world.
Here you can see a map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_2008.png Where is all the wealth? A minimum wage of .37 cents in China with less control over their thoughts, actions, speech, and religion. Let me think, this is a hard one on where the quality of life is better... I might need a couple geniuses who are anti-America to help me with this one. Maybe I'd rather have some man shove a sock in my mouth when I want to express my opinion and take a wage reduction from $60,000 to $3500 after all.
Haha.
Edit: By looking at the map I forgot to mention South Korea, also a democracy. Why is it when you look at that map Democracies light up light goddamn Christmas lights? Is it just me?
|
Maybe you should read more about the petrodollar, forex manipulation, the World Bank and IMF, and the many many other ways that the USA/UK have dominated the world economy since WW2.
What you're saying has very very little to do with "democracy" and a lot to do with who won the major wars of the colonial age and the World Wars. Your lack of understanding about your own country is astounding.
You're probably the kind of guy who thinks WW1 was fought over an Archduke and WW2 was fought to save the Jews/Hawaii.
|
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so is ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude.
|
On January 04 2010 04:53 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Maybe you should read more about the petrodollar, forex manipulation, the World Bank and IMF, and the many many other ways that the USA/UK have dominated the world economy since WW2.
What you're saying has very very little to do with "democracy" and a lot to do with who won the major wars of the colonial age and the World Wars. Your lack of understanding about your own country is astounding.
You're probably the kind of guy who thinks WW1 was fought over an Archduke and WW2 was fought to save the Jews/Hawaii.
Oh, here comes the conspiracy theory. I don't have time to listen to all of your ridiculously misguided and unsupported opinions. I am having a hard time figuring out if you are trolling me, playing devil's advocate, or just plain stupid.
|
Conspiracy theo...
You've got to be a troll. Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you really think democracy itself lead to the US becoming the richest nation, then... yeah, very fail.
|
On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude.
No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem.
Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return.
|
On January 04 2010 04:55 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 04:53 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Maybe you should read more about the petrodollar, forex manipulation, the World Bank and IMF, and the many many other ways that the USA/UK have dominated the world economy since WW2.
What you're saying has very very little to do with "democracy" and a lot to do with who won the major wars of the colonial age and the World Wars. Your lack of understanding about your own country is astounding.
You're probably the kind of guy who thinks WW1 was fought over an Archduke and WW2 was fought to save the Jews/Hawaii. Oh, here comes the conspiracy theory. I don't have time to listen to all of your ridiculously misguided and unsupported opinions. I am having a hard time figuring out if you are trolling me, playing devil's advocate, or just plain stupid.
lolol There isn't a single thing conspiracy about anything I've said. Hahaha wow dude. You're flat out ignorant.
What exactly is theoretical about the petrodollar? OPEC was forced to only accept US currency as payment for their oil. This isn't a wild speculation. It's out there in the open. If you knew half a damn about how commodities worked, you'd be familiar with this term.
Forex manipulation is a constant and cumulative process done by all the major banks of the world. Except the modern banking system as we know it was built by the British and then transferred over to the USA with the creation of the Fed. The world money supply was bottlenecked in US currency during WW2, especially because the economies of Europe were depleted by two all-out wars and had nothing left. US foreign investment and US capital spearheaded the economic redevelopment of Europe in the Marshall Plan. This led to a massive profit for the USA and set them light-years ahead of the competition in terms of control of world money supply/economic power. This advantage has been aggregated over the last few decades by a constant trade in national currencies that continually net US banks a profit using more and more advanced algorithms for forex trading.
The World Bank and IMF are set up to help develop countries. Except, what they actually do is have the USA print money for the sake of loaning it to people with the full knowledge that these countries will be unable to repay the loan. They then bundle these loans, sell them to private equity groups at a bargain bin rate, and the private equity groups take over collection of interest. They do so for awhile to make their IRR and then when the nation inevitably defaults on the loan, they offer a smaller lump sum settlement and the nation's currency is devalued due to poor credit. The nation then needs to go get another loan to stabilize their currency through use of foreign reserves and start they cycle over again.
Too bad you probably don't understand any of this :-S. But FREEDOM baby. FREEDOM is what matters.
|
On January 04 2010 04:55 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 04:53 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Maybe you should read more about the petrodollar, forex manipulation, the World Bank and IMF, and the many many other ways that the USA/UK have dominated the world economy since WW2.
What you're saying has very very little to do with "democracy" and a lot to do with who won the major wars of the colonial age and the World Wars. Your lack of understanding about your own country is astounding.
You're probably the kind of guy who thinks WW1 was fought over an Archduke and WW2 was fought to save the Jews/Hawaii. Oh, here comes the conspiracy theory. I don't have time to listen to all of your ridiculously misguided and unsupported opinions. I am having a hard time figuring out if you are trolling me, playing devil's advocate, or just plain stupid.
How are any of those statements conspiracy theories. You're simple-minded and believe that United States joined WWI and WWII to ensure freedom, etc. etc.
The reason we're so wealthy and powerful is because we infringe on the freedoms of other peoples. We raped Germany at the end of WWI and raped the rest of Europe so hard that we managed to control a majority of the world's wealth. It has nothing to do with your so called democracy or freedoms.
|
On January 04 2010 05:01 Dracid wrote:
Conspiracy theo...
You've got to be a troll. Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you really think democracy itself lead to the US becoming the richest nation, then... yeah, very fail.
I already know the little game you are playing right now, basking in the pomposity of your arguments because you seem more worldly by defending "different ways of life."
|
On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return.
So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics?
Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified.
You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion.
|
On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion.
What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me.
|
So what if your freedom of speech/freedom of press infringes upon the stability of the state? Take away the state, and the whole country goes to hell, in which case there's no guarantee for your life (much less your belongings). Ethics by their nature are also subjective and should not be treated as absolute, so just because you might think personal freedoms > political stability, that doesn't mean the Chinese have to agree with you.
Freedom of press and democracy might work for the United States, but that doesn't mean it's fitting for the rest of the world. I actually don't think censorship is the correct answer, but I'm not so arrogant as to presume that I know what's best for the country, especially since you really do seem to have no idea what life in China is like. People in China don't go through life thinking they're poor and oppressed, wishing they had American freedoms.
|
On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me.
Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting.
|
On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me.
You are really good at avoiding points. As expected from a troll.
|
On January 04 2010 05:42 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting.
I will avoid posting here from this point but it is simply because I don't have enough time and it is getting very boring.
|
On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
I totally agree. This guy should not have to take responsibility for the possibility of other people killing themselves with these drugs.
|
|
|
On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it.
Giving the death sentence/capital punishment is one of the major ways China, a country with massive population can do to deter people from committing crimes. Keeping them in prison for life would probably be the much more expensive alternative. Just my 3 cents
|
On January 04 2010 12:18 chongu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it. Giving the death sentence/capital punishment is one of the major ways China, a country with massive population can do to deter people from committing crimes. Keeping them in prison for life would probably be the much more expensive alternative. Just my 3 cents
Death penalty has never acted as a better deterrant than life in prison.
If StorkHwaiting is to be believed, Life in Prison in China is a much harsher and less enviable punishment. :o
|
On January 04 2010 13:45 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 12:18 chongu wrote:On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it. Giving the death sentence/capital punishment is one of the major ways China, a country with massive population can do to deter people from committing crimes. Keeping them in prison for life would probably be the much more expensive alternative. Just my 3 cents Death penalty has never acted as a better deterrant than life in prison. If StorkHwaiting is to be believed, Life in Prison in China is a much harsher and less enviable punishment. :o
Lol jail in China isn't like jail in the USA. They don't put you in a cell and leave you alone, give you cable TV, and a hot tray of food. They put you in a tiny piece of shit with a pot to piss in, routinely come in and beat the shit out of you, take you out for shock therapy, etc. If your fam visits and gives you anything to make your stay more comfortable, most likely the guards will come in, beat the shit out of you, and take it for themselves.
At least this is what I've heard from the few people who have been in a Chinese jail. Then again, they're probably biased and not going to say anything nice about their experiences. Although, it's the rare person who says anything nice about jail time.
Most of the stuff I've heard from Americans who've been to jail is about the incessant boredom, the constant male nudity, and the mild amounts of homo crap that goes on. (It's not constant buttfking rape like people say, but it does happen. Usually only to very weak personalities or people who are already into that sort of thing).
|
HhahAhaha
China
British
Drug
or rather
British brings drug to China
doesn't really go well lol
Britain: Bringing drugz to China since 1750
|
On January 04 2010 05:57 waxypants wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
I totally agree. This guy should not have to take responsibility for the possibility of other people killing themselves with these drugs.
to some degree I wish the same is true in U.S. so I can walk out and buy some weed free
|
On January 04 2010 05:42 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting.
and you sir, are shallow and pedantic.
|
On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
+ Show Spoiler +THE MAN WAS INSANE. HE WAS ILL IN THE HEAD. HE COULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. HE WAS A CUCKOO, A NUT JOB. CHINA JUST MURDERED A CONFUSED LITTLE BIRD.
Damn it felt good writing all that out in caps.
China's sick laws to themselves*, but that man could not be held responsible for his own actions and thus China should have been open to a bilateral solution based on discussions with the UK. That's the crux of this whole case, not whatever the other guy did: China was a dick to a guy who didn't have his brain right, UK will never say sorry to China for China being a dick (they never do to anyone, even non-dicks), and now we might have a general problem with the relations between these two countries.
*(although ideally the entire world would have laws that respect human beings, and no that's not a "damn communists" thing)
|
Has anyone ever seen that documentary "Ganja Queen" ? Its very informative on how some of these things can fall onto innocent people, not saying he's innocent...just saying, its out there.
|
On January 04 2010 23:16 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:42 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting. and you sir, are shallow and pedantic.
He's a bit pedantic, perhaps, but I'm unsure how you extracted shallow. Also, pedantry is well warranted in the face of such blatant ignorance.
|
China has their own versions of facebook and plenty of sites that are like youtube.
|
On January 04 2010 16:24 evanthebouncy! wrote:
HhahAhaha
China
British
Drug
or rather
British brings drug to China
doesn't really go well lol
Britain: Bringing drugz to China since 1750
Lol fantastic slogan
|
Does 7strife share the same ip as all these other random single/double digit posters in this thread ..?
It's also pretty ironic that most people who keeps harping freedom of the press doesn't even read the papers.
|
On January 05 2010 00:10 edahl wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
+ Show Spoiler +THE MAN WAS INSANE. HE WAS ILL IN THE HEAD. HE COULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. HE WAS A CUCKOO, A NUT JOB. CHINA JUST MURDERED A CONFUSED LITTLE BIRD. Damn it felt good writing all that out in caps. China's sick laws to themselves*, but that man could not be held responsible for his own actions and thus China should have been open to a bilateral solution based on discussions with the UK. That's the crux of this whole case, not whatever the other guy did: China was a dick to a guy who didn't have his brain right, UK will never say sorry to China for China being a dick (they never do to anyone, even non-dicks), and now we might have a general problem with the relations between these two countries. *(although ideally the entire world would have laws that respect human beings, and no that's not a "damn communists" thing)
Well, that's the thing. If you've been reading the thread, you'd know that it's questionable whether or not he really was mentally unstable. I agree that China could have looked into it more, but you have to admit the circumstances were incredibly suspicious since there's no previous documented history of him being ill.
Also, as mentioned before, where was his family in all this? If you know the guy's unstable, why wasn't he supervised more closely, you know, before he entered China with 4 kg of heroin (you only need to be caught with 50g to be given the death sentence). The timing for him to suddenly be known as mentally ill is a little too convenient is all. Of course, we can't know either way at this point, but just because the BBC says he was mentally impaired doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
|
On January 05 2010 02:56 BalliSLife wrote:
China has their own versions of facebook and plenty of sites that are like youtube.
Really? That is interesting.
|
On January 05 2010 02:56 BalliSLife wrote:
China has their own versions of facebook and plenty of sites that are like youtube.
true but it is really sad
I kept trying to show my friends my upload on youtube :/
|
On January 05 2010 05:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2010 02:56 BalliSLife wrote:
China has their own versions of facebook and plenty of sites that are like youtube. Really? That is interesting.
Does it really count as a facebook substitute if you can't anonymously stalk people? (It keeps track of who visits your profile. Yes I'm aware that there are ways to do with with facebook as well, but I assume most people are too lazy to bother.)
|
While I certainly will not commend the law itself, the guy got what he got. It's his responsibility to read the laws and not break them, and he failed that.
The issue of insanity is unknown to us really. There isn't enough information on the case for me to decide, but I do not trust China's juridical judgement on this either. I doubt they gave a truly legitimate trial. It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar, but none of use can confirm it either way.
|
On January 05 2010 07:42 Han Solo wrote:
While I certainly will not commend the law itself, the guy got what he got. It's his responsibility to read the laws and not break them, and he failed that.
The issue of insanity is unknown to us really. There isn't enough information on the case for me to decide, but I do not trust China's juridical judgement on this either. I doubt they gave a truly legitimate trial. It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar, but none of use can confirm it either way.
So you have no clue if the guy is crazy, but since you happen to dislike China for whatever reason, you've decided they couldn't possibly give a proper trial and therefore the guy was probably bipolar. Nice. Makes sense.
|
On January 05 2010 07:54 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2010 07:42 Han Solo wrote:
While I certainly will not commend the law itself, the guy got what he got. It's his responsibility to read the laws and not break them, and he failed that.
The issue of insanity is unknown to us really. There isn't enough information on the case for me to decide, but I do not trust China's juridical judgement on this either. I doubt they gave a truly legitimate trial. It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar, but none of use can confirm it either way. So you have no clue if the guy is crazy, but since you happen to dislike China for whatever reason, you've decided they couldn't possibly give a proper trial and therefore the guy was probably bipolar. Nice. Makes sense.
I don't trust an extremely totalitarian country to prosecute without bias, no.
It's not just China, a totalitarian country/state. Western countries have it to an extent, but it's still there and I do not blindly trust my own goverment either, but I certainly rate it above China.
Edit: And do tell how the hell you pulled out "probably" from my post? I said it's entirely possible that the guy was bipolar, but I doubt he was.
|
Good for you, Han Solo. I think the USS Enterprise is better than the Millenium Falcon. And Captain Kirk is sexier than you.
|
So you have refute whatsoever and are just posting crap. Gotcha.
|
On January 05 2010 08:12 Han Solo wrote:
So you have refute whatsoever and are just posting crap. Gotcha.
lolol dude you haven't put anything worth discussing. I'm just having fun right now XD. Why so serious? Are you honestly mad that I dissed the Millenium Falcon?
|
On January 05 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2010 08:12 Han Solo wrote:
So you have refute whatsoever and are just posting crap. Gotcha. lolol dude you haven't put anything worth discussing. I'm just having fun right now XD. Why so serious? Are you honestly mad that I dissed the Millenium Falcon?
I got over my 13/14 year old internet rage a long time ago, so no.
I can't remeber being angry over something on a forum for years now.
|
"It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar"
Pretty sure that's where he pulled probably from.
Anyhow, this is the brainwashing I'm talking about. It's one thing to list legitimate complaints, it's another to just say "well, they're totalitarian, so that automatically means they're terrible and wrong." All you're doing is throwing buzzwords around without actually understanding any of the issues involved.
|
On January 05 2010 08:27 Dracid wrote:
"It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar"
Ok, sorry about that. It's badly worded, my fault.
Anyhow, this is the brainwashing I'm talking about. It's one thing to list legitimate complaints, it's another to just say "well, they're totalitarian, so that automatically means they're terrible and wrong." All you're doing is throwing buzzwords around without actually understanding any of the issues involved:
Issues about what? This particular case? Frankly, we as the public know little of the actual proceedings so it's hard to judge at all.
|
On January 05 2010 08:33 Han Solo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2010 08:27 Dracid wrote:
"It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar" Ok, sorry about that. It's badly worded, my fault. Show nested quote +Anyhow, this is the brainwashing I'm talking about. It's one thing to list legitimate complaints, it's another to just say "well, they're totalitarian, so that automatically means they're terrible and wrong." All you're doing is throwing buzzwords around without actually understanding any of the issues involved: Issues about what? This particular case? Frankly, we as the public know little of the actual proceedings so it's hard to judge at all.
Except you are judging lol.
|
On January 05 2010 08:35 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2010 08:33 Han Solo wrote:On January 05 2010 08:27 Dracid wrote:
"It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar" Ok, sorry about that. It's badly worded, my fault. Anyhow, this is the brainwashing I'm talking about. It's one thing to list legitimate complaints, it's another to just say "well, they're totalitarian, so that automatically means they're terrible and wrong." All you're doing is throwing buzzwords around without actually understanding any of the issues involved: Issues about what? This particular case? Frankly, we as the public know little of the actual proceedings so it's hard to judge at all. Except you are judging lol.
Judging on the potential for abuse considering this is a highly publicized(I think it's spelt with a z) case, yes. If the Chinese show a tough hand here and now it will surely lower the amount of drug trafficking to some degree.
|
On January 05 2010 08:41 Han Solo wrote:
If the Chinese show a tough hand here and now it will surely lower the amount of drug trafficking to some degree.
This.
|
On January 05 2010 08:27 Dracid wrote:
"It wouldn't suprise me if the guy was indeed bipolar"
Pretty sure that's where he pulled probably from.
Anyhow, this is the brainwashing I'm talking about. It's one thing to list legitimate complaints, it's another to just say "well, they're totalitarian, so that automatically means they're terrible and wrong." All you're doing is throwing buzzwords around without actually understanding any of the issues involved.
On January 05 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
lolol dude you haven't put anything worth discussing. I'm just having fun right now XD. Why so serious? Are you honestly mad that I dissed the Millenium Falcon?
I see you hypocritical totalitarian sympathizers have found some fresh meat!
|
On January 05 2010 08:44 timmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2010 08:41 Han Solo wrote:
If the Chinese show a tough hand here and now it will surely lower the amount of drug trafficking to some degree. This.
More like, drug flow will likely drop for a bit while smaller smugglers are scared off. The criminal organizations with more secure pipelines, however, will just profit from increased street prices and depending on the magnitude of the price change, might start fighting for once settled territory.
|
On January 05 2010 08:44 timmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2010 08:41 Han Solo wrote:
If the Chinese show a tough hand here and now it will surely lower the amount of drug trafficking to some degree. This.
Unlikely. Those willing to smuggle drugs are firstly desperate and vulnerable, easily persuaded into taking such risks.
|
What is up with this outpouring of sympathy for drug dealers. Sers wtf. Drug dealers aren't these sad little, misguided individuals who don't know what they're doing, okay? You guys act like we're talking about child prostitutes or political refugees here. They're NOT.
These are people who for whatever reason decided selling drugs was a good way to make money. So they started slanging. Yes, some drug dealers are poor kids from the ghetto who got roped into it because they've got no way up and out of the hellhole they were born in. There are also quite a number of drug dealers who start selling simply because they're around the drug scene and like to score some extra cash on the side while bartending/waiting tables/working at Disney world.
Then there are Ivy League kids who know a lot of buddies in the dorm who like that Colombia white, so they slang all over campus to make some fat dough to go buy hot girls shots at the club.
There are all types out there and they're all connected by one common bond, they're trying to make money by selling drugs. That's it. There's no other standard among drug dealers. So stop acting like you're ready to economically and psychologically profile all drugdealers.
|
You know what I find ironic in all this? Foreigners in China, especially ones with Western European/American passports, get a lot of LEEWAY with the cops. If the cops need 50% of the evidence to convict a Chinese person, then they'd need 150% evidence to convict a foreigner(provided you came from the right places like UK). I speak from personal experience and chatting with cops I know.
So oddly enough, in this situation, I'd trust the Chinese govt more than the UK or American government when the defendant is British. Because they know how much westerners like to bitch about these things and find it too troublesome from a foreign relations standpoint. So if they're putting a bullet to this guy's head, they're REALLY CERTAIN about it. Otherwise they'd never bother.
Btw, the 30 minute trial was for appeals. So it's not short at all. US Supreme Court cases I believe has a 1 hour limit to its cases. It's kind of funny how so many people think the court just convicted him unfairly, when they've likely went through everything with a fine toothed comb.
I think there's a lot of things wrong with the Chinese government. But it's kind of hilarious yet sad that usually westerners never hit the true problems with China. They just poke a bit left and right, sometimes accusing correctly, sometimes miss the mark completely.
|
On January 05 2010 12:57 baubo wrote:
You know what I find ironic in all this? Foreigners in China, especially ones with Western European/American passports, get a lot of LEEWAY with the cops. If the cops need 50% of the evidence to convict a Chinese person, then they'd need 150% evidence to convict a foreigner(provided you came from the right places like UK). I speak from personal experience and chatting with cops I know.
So oddly enough, in this situation, I'd trust the Chinese govt more than the UK or American government when the defendant is British. Because they know how much westerners like to bitch about these things and find it too troublesome from a foreign relations standpoint. So if they're putting a bullet to this guy's head, they're REALLY CERTAIN about it. Otherwise they'd never bother.
Btw, the 30 minute trial was for appeals. So it's not short at all. US Supreme Court cases I believe has a 1 hour limit to its cases. It's kind of funny how so many people think the court just convicted him unfairly, when they've likely went through everything with a fine toothed comb.
I think there's a lot of things wrong with the Chinese government. But it's kind of hilarious yet sad that usually westerners never hit the true problems with China. They just poke a bit left and right, sometimes accusing correctly, sometimes miss the mark completely.
I am gonna say +1 for each and every paragragh.
|
Certainly an interesting read.
I have no real first-hand knowledge of the case, all I know is from the articles provided in OP and the comments here, but I'm certainly glad it sends a message to everybody that drugs in YOUR bag leads to YOUR death.
Convincing a 50+ year old daddy that carrying a pack of mysterious stuff (4kg is quite a lot) into a foreign country will make him a pop star... just lol.
*edit: just noticed I got a zealot icon. woohoo!!
|
On January 05 2010 12:57 baubo wrote:
You know what I find ironic in all this? Foreigners in China, especially ones with Western European/American passports, get a lot of LEEWAY with the cops. If the cops need 50% of the evidence to convict a Chinese person, then they'd need 150% evidence to convict a foreigner(provided you came from the right places like UK). I speak from personal experience and chatting with cops I know.
So oddly enough, in this situation, I'd trust the Chinese govt more than the UK or American government when the defendant is British. Because they know how much westerners like to bitch about these things and find it too troublesome from a foreign relations standpoint. So if they're putting a bullet to this guy's head, they're REALLY CERTAIN about it. Otherwise they'd never bother.
Btw, the 30 minute trial was for appeals. So it's not short at all. US Supreme Court cases I believe has a 1 hour limit to its cases. It's kind of funny how so many people think the court just convicted him unfairly, when they've likely went through everything with a fine toothed comb.
I think there's a lot of things wrong with the Chinese government. But it's kind of hilarious yet sad that usually westerners never hit the true problems with China. They just poke a bit left and right, sometimes accusing correctly, sometimes miss the mark completely.
Thank you, baubo.
|
On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves.
Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea!
Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways.
|
On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways.
Yeah monolith. Why have any laws at all? Either human beings are strong and excellent, and there is no need for any laws, or they are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how to behave.
|
On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways.
So what are you suggesting a free market of drugs?
And according to your logic, the deaths and crime caused by drug-dealers and abusers in America is perfectly legitimate? Government is here to protect people and heroin is a threat to China's society.
|
On January 05 2010 00:45 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 23:16 Myxomatosis wrote:On January 04 2010 05:42 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting. and you sir, are shallow and pedantic. He's a bit pedantic, perhaps, but I'm unsure how you extracted shallow. Also, pedantry is well warranted in the face of such blatant ignorance.
i disagree. obviously you are shallow and pedantic as well.
|
On January 06 2010 11:44 asianskill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways. So what are you suggesting a free market of drugs? And according to your logic, the deaths and crime caused by drug-dealers and abusers in America is perfectly legitimate? Government is here to protect people and heroin is a threat to China's society.
I am precisely suggesting a free market of drugs. The deaths caused by drug-dealers selling drugs are a result of the people taking the drugs, not the physical act of someone selling them. Every human should have the right to buy what they want and consume what they want (provided they're not buying people, of course). Most of the crime in America is the result of the drug trade being made underground due to laws. If drug laws in America were different, criminals would not be able to compete with free market forces, as the talents that criminals are good at (smuggling, illicit-selling, avoiding narcs and cops) would no longer be necessary in the drug trade. In short, deaths are legitimate if the individual chooses his or her own death, and the currently illegitimate crime would wither under a free market.
Heroin is only a threat to a society if the aforementioned society is rotten from within. A strong and savvy society has nothing to fear from drugs. Make no mistake, when the government has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body, it doesn't mean they're protecting you from big bad drug dealers. It means they're protecting you from yourself, because they don't think you're responsible enough for the job.
|
On January 06 2010 11:43 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways. Yeah monolith. Why have any laws at all? Either human beings are strong and excellent, and there is no need for any laws, or they are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how to behave.
Straw-man argument fails.
|
Do not pet or feed the trolls. They will eventually starve from lack of attention or children.
|
Crime in America, like in many countries, is due to economic disparity and people who are dissatisfied with the normal labor market. It doesn't matter what the product is. The point is people will find some way to game the system and engage in anti-social behaviors because they're trying to profit off of it.
Your proposal doesn't make sense. Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we make hacking and cheating absolutely ok in Starcraft? If hacking and cheating was allowed then everyone could do it, and if everyone did it, then the playing field would be level again. Soon enough, the best players will still advance because even with cheats and hacks, if you put an A+ player vs a D player both with hacks on, the A+ player will still win.
This is the same kind of twisted logic that people use to try to justify giving everyone guns. Coz if everyone had them, then having a gun wouldn't be an advantage! NOT.
|
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
|
On January 06 2010 12:00 monolith94 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 11:43 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways. Yeah monolith. Why have any laws at all? Either human beings are strong and excellent, and there is no need for any laws, or they are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how to behave. Straw-man argument fails.
I agree with you. I wrote an article here earlier about this.
If you want to speak of responsibility; then it lies upon the person who chooses freely to use the drug. When you outlaw drugs, then you create a situation where the price is so expensive that it fuels the development of criminal enterprises and economically crushes its users so fast they enter the point of no return 100x quicker. In addition, if the price is out of grasp, then the users resort to criminal activity to acquire it. This man shouldn't be executed, he shouldn't even be incarcerated.
Most of the consequences of drug use in society are created by the fact they are outlawed by governments, which spurs the public opinion to desire them outlawed, creating a cycle. If these drugs were legal (and untaxed) then they would cost as much as your laundry detergent. Then, you can begin to address the real problem, educating your people of the danger of addiction to a mood altering substance (and if they choose to use; how to do so properly.)
You claim to support these policies to protect would be drug users and their families; but your policies are the cause of their destruction. I assume we all know we could easily afford and obtain heroin with 99% success rate if we tried, so are your policies really factoring in to diminishing desire to use (or is something else stopping you?) If it cost 20 cents instead of 20 dollars and was 100% success would you suddenly use?
StorkHwaiting and asianskill are complete trolls though, beware.
edit: They always seem to post at the same time (above only 1 minute between each other.) Just thought I'd mention it. So from now, I will watch this topic to make sure you insane totalitarian trash don't troll unnoticed.
|
On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
You're a smarter man than me. I'll stop now.
|
On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
I never claimed that the drug war was the cause of all crime; the only claim I'd make is that the drug war has caused drug crime to explode to incredible and untenable levels. Of course in a free-market drug crime will still exist, just as in a free market corporate crime will exist. However, the government will protect citizens from drug crime in reasonable ways. For example, in providing drug testing to ensure drug purity. That's what the ATF is for. How many moonshine distilleries are left, after all?
Say, for example, that you have a family: their son having not been educated by his parents and fed obvious lies by the school's DARE program, decides to experiment with drugs. He falls further and further down the rabbit hole, and winds up doing something drastic. Say… mug a person. Now, whose responsibility is it that this fellow does something drastic? It's his responsibility, and his alone. It can be the parents responsibility too, if they choose to accept it. Certainly not the drugs, as hundreds of thousands of people daily take some form of stimulant, whether mild or severe, without reacting similarly.
|
On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
If drugs were legal "drug dealers" would not exist; you wouldn't buy them on the corner of the block. All the criminals who prosper now from the trade would no longer be prospering from the trade. Do you see drug dealers selling packets of cigarettes or liquor on the corner?
edit: Now I won't continue with you until you first admit you are wrong when you said that "drug dealers" would be set loose upon the society as messiahs. You have to admit, if drugs were not outlawed, then street "drug dealers" would not exist; Then, we can discuss further in a humiliating experience for you. I will hold you accountable for the ignorant foolish things you say.
|
The thing is that "drugs" are actually currently legal in America. Just not arbitrarily chosen drugs. I can walk down to my local packie, just around the corner, and buy enough liquor to literally drink myself tonight. All of it perfectly legal. We just choose not to call alcohol a drug because that would make us uncomfortable. When I was in college I was able to sample a certain mind-altering chemical compound legally because the government hadn't realized it was something mind-altering yet. What was legal then overnight became illegal due to fear. Was what I did unjust? Was what I did really something for which I could now be thrown in prison for? Would putting me, a tax-paying, working citizen in prison based simply on fears really be a valuable use of our government's energy?
Mark my words, there is even an element of society today that would make liquor illegal if they felt they could get away with it and somehow repeal an amendment. These are people who think that everyone should be good like they are good, that everyone should be upright and refrain from debauchery, when in reality debauchery is an inextricable element of what it means to be human. Lead an entirely ascetic, sterile life, and even a cracker with a bit of honey on it can become debauched.
|
On January 06 2010 12:36 monolith94 wrote:
The thing is that "drugs" are actually currently legal in America. Just not arbitrarily chosen drugs. I can walk down to my local packie, just around the corner, and buy enough liquor to literally drink myself tonight. All of it perfectly legal. We just choose not to call alcohol a drug because that would make us uncomfortable. When I was in college I was able to sample a certain mind-altering chemical compound legally because the government hadn't realized it was something mind-altering yet. What was legal then overnight became illegal due to fear. Was what I did unjust? Was what I did really something for which I could now be thrown in prison for? Would putting me, a tax-paying, working citizen in prison based simply on fears really be a valuable use of our government's energy?
Mark my words, there is even an element of society today that would make liquor illegal if they felt they could get away with it and somehow repeal an amendment. These are people who think that everyone should be good like they are good, that everyone should be upright and refrain from debauchery, when in reality debauchery is an inextricable element of what it means to be human. Lead an entirely ascetic, sterile life, and even a cracker with a bit of honey on it can become debauched.
Absolutely. Now, in prohibition of alcohol here in America in the 1920s they got a good quick taste of before and after you put prohibition on a desired drug. Then, they switched back. The terrible effect was too obvious. Let me assure you prohibition of drugs is hurting, not helping! You can see by analysis alone. No one but the criminals benefit by supply extremely down and demand extremely up and industry they the criminals have a monopoly on! Now, you can see them slanging left and right because they have a vested interested in getting you hooked. I don't want drug dealers to be "messiahs" (as you claimed I did earlier in one of your posts) I want them to lose their job! Those who support these laws are the ones who put them in business obviously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
|
Of course, my admission of having used drugs can surely be used against me by those who can't wake up to the reality of things, and insist that surely this means I can't be trusted — an ad hominem! And surely my motivations must be suspect, I could only want drugs to be legalized so I can live my nefarious drug user lifestyle! What a lark. The conservative forces have been so effective in using ad hominem attacks that any serious legalization activist must live like a veritable monk.
That said, the pro-legalization movement has evolved tremendously from the days back in the sixties when pro-legalization meant advocating the use of drugs on a wide scale to heal the psyche of a nation, a la Timothy Leary. Modern voices, like Jacob Sullum, are far more sober and, I hope, more deeply influentialy for it.
|
We're fucking drowning in trolls who probably have never even talked to a Chinese national.
China does know what it was like when drugs were legal. It was destroying the country, and posed such an existential threat to the nation that they went to war - twice - in order to stop it. Maybe the Qing Dynasty should have respected the rights of its citizens to addict themselves to opium and watch their country collapse around them because of it. After all, it would downright coercive or paternal for the Chinese government to preserve its economic integrity or existence as a sovereign nation.
But man, if only China had seen what America had gone through with prohibition. Certainly watching your country collapse around you, being invaded by foreign powers determined to protect free markets and the right to market opium to Chinese addicts, and having thousands of troops killed to defend the right to control imports pales in comparison to gangsters running around with Tommy guns.
|
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out.
|
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use.
|
On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use.
Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control.
Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
I also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars.
|
On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out.
Well, it's kind of 50-50. The ennui of half the nobles was due to their opium addiction lol. But yeah, the Empress Dowager was pretty instrumental in fubaring the dynasty. The emperor and his colleagues were actually for reform, until she had them locked up in the Forbidden Palace... GG Qing Dynasty. Kind of a shame too as the Qing had just gotten a lock on the exterior of China for the first time in who knows how long.
|
On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out.
A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.)
On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Show nested quote +Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars I also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars.
Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size.
|
|
|
On January 06 2010 13:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out. A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.) Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_WarsI also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars. Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size.
No actually...
Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the sale of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[13] Opium was banned completely in 1799 and this prohibition continued until 1860.[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium
|
On January 06 2010 13:20 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out. A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.) On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_WarsI also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars. Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size. No actually... Show nested quote +Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the sale of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[13] Opium was banned completely in 1799 and this prohibition continued until 1860.[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium
Yes, but
On January 06 2010 13:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out. A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.) Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_WarsI also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars. Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size.
|
I think it's awesome 7Strife is now claiming that banning a drug increases its usage.
Legalizing alcohol and tobacco might have gotten rid of the traffickers, but it sure didn't help the population at all. It's only recently with extremely strong drives to educate people on the dangers of smoking that you see a decrease in smokers. Also, people have had to rise up and put a stop to smoking in public with LAWS, that's the only thing that got cigarettes out of the restaurants and bars. I can tell you it was a disgusting thing to try to eat food in a restaurant full of smoke. I, for one, am damned glad smoking is now banned in restaurants.
I won't even begin to describe all the social ills and losses we suffer due to alcohol consumption and abuse. It's so obvious that it does not need description.
|
On January 06 2010 13:31 StorkHwaiting wrote:
I think it's awesome 7Strife is now claiming that banning a drug increases its usage.
Legalizing alcohol and tobacco might have gotten rid of the traffickers, but it sure didn't help the population at all. It's only recently with extremely strong drives to educate people on the dangers of smoking that you see a decrease in smokers. Also, people have had to rise up and put a stop to smoking in public with LAWS, that's the only thing that got cigarettes out of the restaurants and bars. I can tell you it was a disgusting thing to try to eat food in a restaurant full of smoke. I, for one, am damned glad smoking is now banned in restaurants.
I won't even begin to describe all the social ills and losses we suffer due to alcohol consumption and abuse. It's so obvious that it does not need description.
I have expressed in my post that educating people of the dangers of addiction to substances is the A+++ way to beat drug use (and addiction occasionally.) imo It is still a persons choice if they want to do a drug; their body is their property just as I believe suicide should be an inalienable right. The textbook natural or inalienable right is the right to life; thus it would serve you have a right to death; not contingent upon legal rights (or laws.)
|
7Strife,
you are assuming that the individuals that choose death are fully capable of making such choices. which is not always true. for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
|
this thing still going? rofl
|
On January 06 2010 14:02 dybydx wrote:
7Strife,
you are assuming that the individuals that choose death are fully capable of making such choices. which is not always true. for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
Yes, I know. There should be a stipulation; you cannot be under the influence of any drug. Perhaps, you need to wait (3) or so weeks (appointment should take that long.) Depression? Sounds like a pretty damn good reason for suicide imo. However, those in the mental health / pharma industry would certainly have sales decrease much if that were the case. (We all know they wouldn't like that!) Some folks live 40-50 years, that's enough, they experienced everything they wish to (within reason), now they realize they are just doing the same thing over and over, eat, drink, piss, watch TV, watch movie, eat, shit, sleep, on and on. So you had enough now ~ you seen it all (in a certain kind of way) and feel as a hamster on a wheel (and we are; just a larger scale) and wanna see the exit. I say, no problem, and have an epic journey. Tech will send you to our next destination (we all do very soon) painlessly.
|
On January 06 2010 12:25 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon. If drugs were legal "drug dealers" would not exist; you wouldn't buy them on the corner of the block. All the criminals who prosper now from the trade would no longer be prospering from the trade. Do you see drug dealers selling packets of cigarettes or liquor on the corner? edit: Now I won't continue with you until you first admit you are wrong when you said that "drug dealers" would be set loose upon the society as messiahs. You have to admit, if drugs were not outlawed, then street "drug dealers" would not exist; Then, we can discuss further in a humiliating experience for you. I will hold you accountable for the ignorant foolish things you say.
Just wanted to point out how ridiculous you are.
It's ironic as well that you'd call somebody a troll when you're posting in a topic regarding China when you have absolutely no idea what the country is like. Calling TL posters totalitarian just shows how little close-minded you really are. I don't even like the Chinese government, but like baubo said, you're way off the mark in your criticisms. You're stuck in a McCarthian mentality where they're different, therefore they're wrong.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need laws and people would be responsible as well as educated regarding drugs. At the moment though, people in China are largely uneducated about drug abuse, which is fine because there aren't that many drugs going around. A free drug market might work in the US, where you have programs in high school and the such, but for now such a system would be terrible for China. Educating the population on drug use would be nice, but they're still working on improving education in rural areas, as well as a myriad of other issues that should take precedence when drug abuse isn't a big problem.
Another thing, do you know how many countries have heroin as a legal substance? Do you know why? Hint: It's not because you're smarter than the rest of the world. I actually think a free drug market might work given the right circumstances, but I don't see how it works as an argument for why a drug smuggler should not have been killed.
|
On January 06 2010 14:02 dybydx wrote:
..... for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
uhm, lol?
|
On December 31 2009 12:39 StorkHwaiting wrote:
While he has a strong claim for mental insanity due to his retarded logic for going to China (or so he claims), what's to stop a guy like him from bringing in 4 kilos of explosives and detonating it on a plane? This is a matter of national security. Insanity is a pretty good defense for things like accidentally crashing a car, trying to suicide, maybe killing a spouse in a fit of manic rage. Carting heroine around to foreign countries just doesn't apply in my opinion.
You can't give people carte blanche to bring whatever they feel like into your country and then allow them to claim they did it because they're nuts. Yeah, he could have been there to become a pop star. He also could have been there because someone said "you do this drug deal for me and I know people in the entertainment biz who will make you a pop star."
It's pretty difficult to confuse 4 KILOS of heroine with anything else. What'd they tell him? Becoming a pop star involves baking a really big fucking cake? Perhaps the celebrity life involves a lot of wardrobe changes so he needed giant blocks of detergent?
If someone's crazy, you keep them in a facility or at home where you can watch him. I don't get why his family is crying about it now. They should have kept their crazy brother in the living room, tied to the sofa watching afternoon soaps. I'm sorry but carrying 4 kilos of heroine into China is a death sentence, much like carrying a boombox into the bathtub. The first way just takes a little bit longer.
I agree, although the penalty seems a little too harsh..
|
On January 06 2010 14:02 dybydx wrote:
for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
haha, I came here just to see what you are still arguing about but this made me laugh in real.
So does it mean I lost my virginity with mutual rape?
|
On January 06 2010 13:31 StorkHwaiting wrote:
I think it's awesome 7Strife is now claiming that banning a drug increases its usage.
Legalizing alcohol and tobacco might have gotten rid of the traffickers, but it sure didn't help the population at all. It's only recently with extremely strong drives to educate people on the dangers of smoking that you see a decrease in smokers. Also, people have had to rise up and put a stop to smoking in public with LAWS, that's the only thing that got cigarettes out of the restaurants and bars. I can tell you it was a disgusting thing to try to eat food in a restaurant full of smoke. I, for one, am damned glad smoking is now banned in restaurants.
I won't even begin to describe all the social ills and losses we suffer due to alcohol consumption and abuse. It's so obvious that it does not need description.
"didn't help the population at all" is such an ambiguous term. First of all, tobacco has ALWAYS been legal. Probably always will be. Drinking did not profoundly decrease (although of course it did decrease to some extent) during prohibition; rather crime profoundly increased. You continue to focus, mindlessly, on the damage caused by the drugs themselves while continuously ignoring the damage caused by crime which is exacerbated by the average citizen being unable to compete on a free market with criminals and stupid drug laws. Also, I'm pretty sure that all of the citizens in prison for possession of MJ haven't been "helped" by drug laws. Legalization of alcohol most certainly helped the population: it helped them to enjoy a cocktail with their dinner, it helped them to have wine with their communion, it helped them to embrace the goodlife by starting their own micro-breweries, and on and on and on. Prohibition is a brutal sledgehammer-like policy that promotes governmental authority while clamping down on individual liberty: a sledgehammer policy when a scalpel is preferable.
|
On January 04 2010 03:18 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 20:42 MamiyaOtaru wrote:On January 03 2010 13:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:
It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. The First Amendment was around a long time before those six decades of rampant consumerism. Your assertion is somewhat flawed *edit* linkified in case someone doesn't know what I am talking about. Trying not to assume everyone knows everything about the US constitution ROFL, Oh you mean that first amendment they had while owning slaves? Nice one, dude. That's also the first amendment where women still couldn't vote and only white male landowners had any say in anything. I can google 20 different laws within a heartbeat that show certain forms of speech are curtailed or outright banned by the US government.
Yeah obviously there are certain forms of banned speech, and people who have historically been enslaved. But when you say we are complacent and that is why we can have free speech, you imply that said "free speech" (with constraints) wasn't there before, which is dumb. A lot of the restrictions on free speech have been emplaced and codified more recently (like the Miller test for obsecenity circa 1973). If anything our speech is becoming less free as we become more complacent.
But let's look at what I was responding to: "It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech".
Obviously you think (and I would not disagree) that "the liberty of free speech" is not unlimited. No one said that. But the "liberty of free speech" we have, whatever it means, is not new. The First Amendment has always been there
It doesn't mean I can say anything and everything (sedition is considered bad) and I never said it did. Way to strawman. My point was that our concept of free speech (whatever nitpicks you care to dig out) has been around a lot longer than the "six decades of rampant consumerism" you were talking about, unless you were referring to 1720s-1780s. That was a dumb post and you can't erase it by flailing around and pointing out our foibles and fuckups.
Let's spell it out: consumerism and complacency are not necessary for "the liberty of free speech" (whatever you meant by it). We had it (alongside bad stuff OMG) well before we were fat and content. Your assertion is risible.
And you're a raging hypocrite for moaning about suffrage for women. It's not like it was granted earlier elsewhere. In fact, the state where I live granted full suffrage (right to vote and hold office) in 1869. The list of places that did so sooner is vanishingly small.
|
I don't think slavery is a strawman. When a percentage of your population doesn't have rights, then you can't start the clock on free speech that far back.
I can bring up numerous cases of peaceful demonstrations in the USA that were fired upon by government troops from the 17th century to the 20th century. I'm sorry if this angers your patriotic vision of America, but this is not a country that had free speech for a very long time.
There is a reason the civil rights movement happened. I think it's repugnant for you to pretend like shit was peachy keen since the 1700's when America had quite appallingly bad enforcement of rights for its citizens until well into the late 20th century. As much as you'd like to cry about what's on a piece of paper, that doesn't make it reality.
You can call me names and use invective and get real mad. It kind of gives me a boner. But it won't change my mind. What will change my mind is if you can somehow portray American history as being an environment where the government enforced the civil rights of its citizens before the 1940's equally and systemically. A task that I don't think anyone can manage because it'd require a serious warping of the truth.
|
I really don't think people should compare keeping hard drugs outlawed and the prohibition. While the argument that banning the drug only increases crime and doesn't decrease usage, it's not right to put alcohol next to cocaine and heroin. One does not because helplessly addicted to alcohol after a few nights of partying. Someone who drinks a couple shots of whisky or vodka every night can still work very productively in the day. You cannot say the same thing about cocaine and heroin. Prohibition did not decrease alcohol usage sure, but that doesn't mean legalizing cocaine or heroin won't increase its usage. Alcohol have been a common drink among households around the world for millenia before the sudden ban, while hard drugs are thankfully only used by a minority of the world's population, and are a "relatively young" form of entertainment compared to other drugs like alcohol or tobacco. You cannot be certain of the effects of legalizing hard drugs simply because of the effects of the prohibition of a completely different type of drug with a completely different history.
You could say that the best way to keep people away from drugs is to educate them. That is absolutely true, but until every citizen of the world is well educated and knows the full consequences of using heroin and its well documented hazards, I won't legalize the drug and count on folk wisdom to prevent it from being used by kids.
|
What a demonstration of ignorance. For one thing, people have become addicted to alcohol very rapidly: witness the wrack and ruin that the American Indians were led to by alcohol. And while there are instances of people becoming addicted to heroin/cocaine as you say, there are certainly instances of people who sample such drugs and do not choose to engage them further. Furthermore, it is very much possible to injest coca and opium byproducts and have a functional, working life. More difficult, certainly, but alcohol can interfere with work just as much if not more so. Do we ban alcohol because of the few people who sneak a flask into the office?
Drugs are also less "young" than you seem to think. Also, you're correct: it is inappropriate to compare the prohibition of alcohol with our current drug war. Our current drug war is much, much worse.
|
On January 06 2010 14:02 dybydx wrote:
7Strife,
you are assuming that the individuals that choose death are fully capable of making such choices. which is not always true. for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
in that case please don't alert the authorities about me hehe
|
Russian Federation1208 Posts
Congrats, China government! Execute these fucking drug dealers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j125/nicktran1125/get_a_brain_morans.jpg)
