|
United States42186 Posts
On December 28 2008 07:24 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote:
Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
I'm not saying these people should have different human rights, the word 'same' is wrong in this instance. I'm saying they should have no human rights because the word 'human', for the purposes intended here, shouldn't apply to them. Show nested quote +On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote:
1. What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. 2.What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. 3.Torturing them is still wrong. 1. I agree with you 2. It wasn't just the fact that they committed torture... 3. My colleague at work suggested: give them the choice of either imprisonment in the dark cell with the loom and the 2 meals a day paying for their own upkeep or execution. If the latter is torture then execute them. It's a pretty weak form of torture if it is torture anyway.
Their act wasn't espcially inhuman. I don't see why you think doing bad shit disqualifies you from human rights. It's as if you can't reconcile humanity with evil acts. Hate to break it to you but humanity isn't as nice as you think it is. They're as human as the rest of us.
If the intention of life imprisonment is not to torture them but to protect the rest of society from them then it doesn't matter if it is a mild form of torture, something which I'd question anyway.
|
"One of the victims was a pregnant woman; her fetus was cut out of her womb"
yeah i lost all my hopes for humanity
|
Kwark, these boys aren't human.
it takes more then opposable thumbs and a car to qualify as a human being.
|
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote:
Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. Torturing them is still wrong.
The golden rule is probably the best ethical rule of thumb that society has. In my view, it's a two-way street:
1) Do unto others as you would have done unto you (or at least don't do unto others as you would not have done unto you), BUT the flip side is:
2) Expect to be done unto you what you would do unto others.
In other words, if I kill someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from death. I have said, "I expect to kill others," and Echo says, "I expect others to kill me."
Precisely likewise, if I torture someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from torture, etc.
There is no ethical problem with torturing someone who has tortured. You are dealing with him according to his own value system, since he has rejected yours.
(One could try to argue that the person who tortures a torturer is now himself a torturer, etc., but that would be sophistry. If someone seriously wants to argue that point, I'll take it up.)
|
On December 29 2008 00:48 qrs wrote:
(One could try to argue that the person who tortures a torturer is now himself a torturer, etc., but that would be sophistry. If someone seriously wants to argue that point, I'll take it up.)
Well this is a simple argument...
When someone tortures someone else, that means they are the torturer in that case. So if you torture these three teenagers, you will be a torturer as well. It won't have as bad a connotation because of the terrible acts they committed of course, but arguing that you aren't a torturer is moronic - you lose by the definition of torturer alone.
|
On December 29 2008 01:31 EscPlan9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2008 00:48 qrs wrote:
(One could try to argue that the person who tortures a torturer is now himself a torturer, etc., but that would be sophistry. If someone seriously wants to argue that point, I'll take it up.) Well this is a simple argument... When someone tortures someone else, that means they are the torturer in that case. So if you torture these three teenagers, you will be a torturer as well. It won't have as bad a connotation because of the terrible acts they committed of course, but arguing that you aren't a torturer is moronic - you lose by the definition of torturer alone.
Right. I am not going to dispute the semantics of the word torturer. It's just that focusing on "the definition of torturer" is missing the point.
Here's my argument: The morality of the golden rule (the way I interpret it) dictates: "act towards others the way you expect them to act towards you". If I torture someone who has not tortured others, I am establishing a certain standard that others now have the right to treat me by. Yes, that gives them the right to torture me.
If I torture someone who has tortured others, I am not establishing a standard for how I treat non-torturers. The distinction is not hair-splitting, IMO--it's a simple one. If you would expect me to torture you, given the chance, you have the right to torture me. If you would expect me not to (expect in both senses: you do not want me to, and I have not shown that I would), then you do not have that right.
|
On December 29 2008 00:48 qrs wrote:
In other words, if I kill someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from death. I have said, "I expect to kill others," and Echo says, "I expect others to kill me."
Precisely likewise, if I torture someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from torture, etc.
i must fully agree with this statement. They lose their human right the moment they dont respect another person's human rights.
|
You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law?
|
WOW I was for the death penalty but then I had a discussion with some friends and they convinced me that the death penalty was wrong. But this just makes me believe in it again. These sick fucks deserve to be told that they are going to be electrocuted, just so they can cry out the fucking penis for weeks to come up to that date, and then told it's canceled. Then the prison should do it to them again. (keeping them in isolation in between fake execution times)
|
On December 29 2008 02:57 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
WOW I was for the death penalty but then I had a discussion with some friends and they convinced me that the death penalty was wrong. But this just makes me believe in it again. These sick fucks deserve to be told that they are going to be electrocuted, just so they can cry out the fucking penis for weeks to come up to that date, and then told it's canceled. Then the prison should do it to them again. (keeping them in isolation in between fake execution times)
I used to be for the death penalty also but then I realized I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in a cell. I think labor camps are the way forward, cheaper and more brutal than massive prisons and they can actually get some use out of them.
|
On December 29 2008 02:59 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2008 02:57 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
WOW I was for the death penalty but then I had a discussion with some friends and they convinced me that the death penalty was wrong. But this just makes me believe in it again. These sick fucks deserve to be told that they are going to be electrocuted, just so they can cry out the fucking penis for weeks to come up to that date, and then told it's canceled. Then the prison should do it to them again. (keeping them in isolation in between fake execution times) I used to be for the death penalty also but then I realized I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in a cell. I think labor camps are the way forward, cheaper and more brutal than massive prisons and they can actually get some use out of them.
Good plan, Im all for it.
|
|
|
On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote:
You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law?
This has nothing to do with the law of whatever country or countries you have in mind. It has to do with universal ethics. Laws do not create rights; they (hopefully) try to reflect them.
Now, perhaps you don't agree with my interpretation of what I call "universal ethics" or perhaps you don't agree that such a thing even exists, but don't appeal to spurious authority please.
As far as I am concerned, one cannot claim to have a double standard apply to himself. He cannot violate a law(/right) and claim protection from that same law(/right). If you don't like the idea of "losing your right to whatever" how about "waiving your right to whatever"? It comes down to the same thing.
|
Qrs, i'm glad to see not everyone is as lazy as me lol.
|
On December 28 2008 10:29 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2008 07:24 HamerD wrote:On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote:
Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
I'm not saying these people should have different human rights, the word 'same' is wrong in this instance. I'm saying they should have no human rights because the word 'human', for the purposes intended here, shouldn't apply to them. On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote:
1. What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. 2.What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. 3.Torturing them is still wrong. 1. I agree with you 2. It wasn't just the fact that they committed torture... 3. My colleague at work suggested: give them the choice of either imprisonment in the dark cell with the loom and the 2 meals a day paying for their own upkeep or execution. If the latter is torture then execute them. It's a pretty weak form of torture if it is torture anyway. Their act wasn't espcially inhuman. I don't see why you think doing bad shit disqualifies you from human rights. It's as if you can't reconcile humanity with evil acts. Hate to break it to you but humanity isn't as nice as you think it is. They're as human as the rest of us. If the intention of life imprisonment is not to torture them but to protect the rest of society from them then it doesn't matter if it is a mild form of torture, something which I'd question anyway.
On December 28 2008 10:29 Kwark wrote:
Their act wasn't espcially inhuman.
That's an opinion, and one that imo most people would disagree with. Like I said, humanity in this situation is an arbitrary philosophical concept.
Uncontrolled, greatly unsympathetic, carefree violence is not something humans propagate. It IS something homo sapiens sapiens can propagate though. Those sorts of acts are simply add odds with any sort of human society- they are quintessentially un-human...inhuman.
Humanity, being a social creature, would be nowhere if each of us acted with such a lack of restraint. So much is that the case, that I would refuse to call them human simply on the basis that they don't act like a sane human acts.
On December 28 2008 10:29 Kwark wrote:
humanity isn't as nice as you think it is
That's a presumptuous statement. I've seen loads of terrifying shit on the internet. Less felonies in real life but I've seen what they do in Africa etc. Most humans ARE as nice as I think. Most humans are good, in that if they CAN help someone, and it won't inconvenience them to help them; then they will. That is, by any definition in my mind, as good as anyone needs to be to be called good.
All violence borne out of necessity and despair, and mental illness, doesn't qualify the perpetrators as being 'not nice' imo. The only thing that qualifies someone as being 'not nice' is enjoying causing pain to other creatures, when unprovoked. To be honest I think a very, very small fraction of humans in this world actually come under that category. And for most of those people, they can control their desires because they understand cooperation and tact. For the group that have sick desires, and actually commit the crimes, and especially for those that have no remorse or sympathy, I either call them mentally ill or inhuman. I think you are probably too cynical about people. Apathy is what most people exhibit and that's not 'not nice'.
On December 28 2008 10:29 Kwark wrote:
f the intention of life imprisonment is not to torture them but to protect the rest of society from them then it doesn't matter if it is a mild form of torture, something which I'd question anyway.
I don't understand this sentence. My position on criminal justice is that it should NEVER be about punishment, and only ever about prevention. I don't hate these murderers or want to punish them, to pay back the grief they caused; only to snuff them out as a cancerous growth on humanity, or at least sequester them from society at no cost. I don't understand the bit about questioning.
|
On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote:
You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law?
This is a philosophical discussion that cannot be solved by facts alone. Saying 'that's the rules' just doesn't cut it. You have to explain why.
sorry qrs hit it first
|
On December 29 2008 04:58 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote:
You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law? This is a philosophical discussion that cannot be solved by facts alone. Saying 'that's the rules' just doesn't cut it. You have to explain why. sorry qrs hit it first
This is not a philosophical discussion, this is law, its written and it has to be obeyed.
On December 29 2008 04:29 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote:
You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law? This has nothing to do with the law of whatever country or countries you have in mind. It has to do with universal ethics. Laws do not create rights; they (hopefully) try to reflect them. Now, perhaps you don't agree with my interpretation of what I call "universal ethics" or perhaps you don't agree that such a thing even exists, but don't appeal to spurious authority please. As far as I am concerned, one cannot claim to have a double standard apply to himself. He cannot violate a law(/right) and claim protection from that same law(/right). If you don't like the idea of "losing your right to whatever" how about "waiving your right to whatever"? It comes down to the same thing.
You know, we have a system a little more complex than hammurabi's, there are laws that tell you what to do when you break other laws, we dont have a single universal law.
|
Laws do not create rights? Well they certainly limit others so that you can have your own rights dont they?
|
On December 29 2008 05:57 Cloud wrote:
Laws do not create rights? Well they certainly limit others so that you can have your own rights dont they?
Yes, they enforce rights. That does not mean that they create them. You're essentially saying, "this is what the law says; therefore this is what the law should say," which does not follow at all.
Maybe I'm not understanding you: do you believe in the concepts of right and wrong (or rights and wrongs) as distinct from the actual law? Or do you believe that those are just convenient societal constructs and as such are determined by whatever the law happens to be?
|
yeah, what qrs says is spot on. People arbitrate the law, not the other way around. The law is just a common ground of arbitration to make arbitration in the justice system unbiased. It's better than having a bunch of judges deciding each case as it comes along, based on their mood or how good their breakfast was. But it is nothing more than a device to standardize arbitration. It's still entirely arbitrary. Which is why debates like this are not solved by saying 'dems the rules'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
