EPTAlso, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything.
Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
Also, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything. | ||
|
brambolius
Netherlands448 Posts
On December 29 2008 06:16 HamerD wrote: 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. You'd guess that with the amount these judges get paid they'd be able to in fact judge, but i guess its really fucking hard lol | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Just out of curiosity, HamerD, is there really any way to determine which offenders qualify as 'inhuman' under your definition? I realize the slippery slope argument is a relatively poor one, but allowing torture, or the death penalty, or whatever happens to be the subject of discussion, in only the 'worst' cases seems to be setting yourself up for disaster. Ok so firstly I don't think anyone should be legally allowed to torture anyone. Why do people think that?! I just said that I wouldn't step in if these murderers were being tortured or lynched. Secondly, it would have to be general consensus. And for me inhumanity would come very late on in the scale of atrocities. Repeated, remorseless, random, violent murders in which the killers are enjoying themselves and NOT insane would for me instantly qualify the murderers as inhuman. All other instances would be very difficult. I don't think execution should even be thought of as a way to go with most murders. I'm not saying it's an open and shut thing, but what the hell ever is? Sliding scales are what the justice system deals in. Juries have sliding scales of sentence very often don't they? On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Also, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything. Yes I agree that torture is wrong. Torture to any creature is wrong. I completely disagree with, and am disgusted by, and would always intervene in cases of dogs and cats being tortured. With pretty much any animal being tortured. But your first part about the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. Ok I completely understand where you are coming from. But there is such a fundamental difference between: a) killing someone for random pleasure b) killing someone to stop them from killing other people for random pleasure That to call both of them simply killing, is moronic. | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
On December 29 2008 07:59 HamerD wrote: Ok so firstly I don't think anyone should be legally allowed to torture anyone. Why do people think that?! I just said that I wouldn't step in if these murderers were being tortured or lynched. Secondly, it would have to be general consensus. And for me inhumanity would come very late on in the scale of atrocities. Repeated, remorseless, random, violent murders in which the killers are enjoying themselves and NOT insane would for me instantly qualify the murderers as inhuman. All other instances would be very difficult. I don't think execution should even be thought of as a way to go with most murders. I'm not saying it's an open and shut thing, but what the hell ever is? Sliding scales are what the justice system deals in. Juries have sliding scales of sentence very often don't they? I guess I'm a bit confused on the point you're trying to clarify here. You oppose torture, you don't think it should be legal, but you wouldn't have a problem if it was used in this situation because it's super bad? And as far as the general consensus goes, that's what we have now. And the death penalty is abused all the time. Case in point: Texas. You claim that the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous, inhuman, unrepentant, etc criminals, yet I guarantee you there's dozens of lawmakers, politicians, judges, and so forth, who think that's what's happening right now. On December 29 2008 07:59 HamerD wrote: Yes I agree that torture is wrong. Torture to any creature is wrong. I completely disagree with, and am disgusted by, and would always intervene in cases of dogs and cats being tortured. With pretty much any animal being tortured. But your first part about the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. Ok I completely understand where you are coming from. But there is such a fundamental difference between: a) killing someone for random pleasure b) killing someone to stop them from killing other people for random pleasure That to call both of them simply killing, is moronic. But the contrast you're pointing out there is a false dilemma. If the only option was to either shoot the guys in the head, or to let them out to continue murdering, of course it would be justified. But that's not the situation. You have to justify killing them rather than simply imprisoning them, not killing them rather than letting them go. Edit: Formatting | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 29 2008 08:42 Lucktar wrote: I guess I'm a bit confused on the point you're trying to clarify here. You oppose torture, you don't think it should be legal, but you wouldn't have a problem if it was used in this situation because it's super bad? And as far as the general consensus goes, that's what we have now. And the death penalty is abused all the time. Case in point: Texas. You claim that the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous, inhuman, unrepentant, etc criminals, yet I guarantee you there's dozens of lawmakers, politicians, judges, and so forth, who think that's what's happening right now. But the contrast you're pointing out there is a false dilemma. If the only option was to either shoot the guys in the head, or to let them out to continue murdering, of course it would be justified. But that's not the situation. You have to justify killing them rather than simply imprisoning them, not killing them rather than letting them go. Edit: Formatting Ok firstly, I think torture is morally wrong. I think stealing is morally wrong. But I don't really care if I see someone stealing from Primark, because I know they are morally wrong (they use sweatshops etc). Same goes for the torture of these guys. I wouldn't want to watch it, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't really give a shit if it happened. I'd just walk on by. Secondly, you asked me how I would imagine one could decide whether certain criminals are inhuman or not. I said by consensus. You then simply took the method I suggested and, because it is similar to the method used to determine whether Texan criminals get the death sentence, attempted to lump both concepts together. I don't think it works...I don't agree with the Texas death sentence system. And as far as the actual situation in Texas is concerned, it's no easy thing to deal with to be honest. I can't really get involved in American law though, so try to rephrase the argument, especially if I have misunderstood you. Thirdly, your point about the false dilemma is totally acceptable but you were shooting at a target I didn't present. I was simply saying that saying 'you are just a killer if you kill a killer' is a little too simple for my taste. I wasn't bringing the concept of life imprisonment into it. That whole concept is well: do these murderers warrant spending any money to keep them alive? I think no. So I think the cheapest way of sequestering them from society is the best. Dark room, 1 loom, make t shirts to pay for their meals, no healthcare; extra money to the families of victims. But then if that is torture they should just be killed. I don't think it's right to actually spend money keeping them alive, because as I said before, I don't think they deserve human rights. | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
On December 29 2008 09:05 HamerD wrote: Ok firstly, I think torture is morally wrong. I think stealing is morally wrong. But I don't really care if I see someone stealing from Primark, because I know they are morally wrong (they use sweatshops etc). Same goes for the torture of these guys. I wouldn't want to watch it, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't really give a shit if it happened. I'd just walk on by. Silence is as good as assent. If you would allow it to happen without speaking out, without giving a shit, then you don't really believe it's morally wrong. On December 29 2008 09:05 HamerD wrote:Secondly, you asked me how I would imagine one could decide whether certain criminals are inhuman or not. I said by consensus. You then simply took the method I suggested and, because it is similar to the method used to determine whether Texan criminals get the death sentence, attempted to lump both concepts together. I don't think it works...I don't agree with the Texas death sentence system. And as far as the actual situation in Texas is concerned, it's no easy thing to deal with to be honest. I can't really get involved in American law though, so try to rephrase the argument, especially if I have misunderstood you. Sorry, forgot you were from the UK; I shouldn't assume that everybody's familiar with the US justice system. What I'm saying is that a consensus system is what we have now in determining whether the death penalty is administered. In Texas, either people tend to be vindictive, bloodthirsty, or just 'tough on crime,' as they love to put it. Either way, the state of Texas contributes a ridiculous percentage of the US executions. The point I'm trying to make is that a consensus doesn't work, because when people get involved in the particulars of a case, they get emotionally involved. Every murder is horrible, and every one causes immense suffering for the family members involved. A consensus system leads to the death penalty being just another means of punishment. On December 29 2008 09:05 HamerD wrote:Thirdly, your point about the false dilemma is totally acceptable but you were shooting at a target I didn't present. I was simply saying that saying 'you are just a killer if you kill a killer' is a little too simple for my taste. I wasn't bringing the concept of life imprisonment into it. Fair enough. From my perspective, the target of the killing is immaterial in determining its morality or lack thereof. I'm not saying that there isn't justifiable homicide, in self-defense and so forth. But if I believe that the death penalty is immoral, and I do, then I believe that executing the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs is just as wrong as executing anyone else. If an action is immoral, the object of that action is immaterial. And the fact that the object may be of little value does not deminish the immorality of the action. On December 29 2008 09:05 HamerD wrote:That whole concept is well: do these murderers warrant spending any money to keep them alive? I think no. So I think the cheapest way of sequestering them from society is the best. Dark room, 1 loom, make t shirts to pay for their meals, no healthcare; extra money to the families of victims. But then if that is torture they should just be killed. I don't think it's right to actually spend money keeping them alive, because as I said before, I don't think they deserve human rights. You could ask that same question of every person in the criminal justice system of any country on earth. And if you were honest, you'd answer 'no' a large portion of the time. Obviously, this doesn't mean that we should drag them outside and shoot them in the head to rid the state of their expense. The prison system exists to keep criminals out of society. Part of that job is to provide food, shelter, even entertainment, in some cases, to people who objectively don't deserve it. But whether they deserve the care isn't the point. The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: But whether they deserve the care isn't the point. I don't see how it's not. The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do. You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial. | ||
KwarK
United States42676 Posts
Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. This makes no sense. The debate is over whether or not the criminal justice system should do <this> or <that>, so appealing to it does nothing. | ||
|
zizou21
United States3683 Posts
I HVE NO OTHER WORDS i made a friend watch it and tell me how it is, here is his feedback: him: FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK him: HOLY SHIT him: THEY JUST PUT THE SCREW DRIVER IN HIS EYE him: AND JABBED IT AROUND FOR LIKE 10 seconds him: this guy is laying in the woods him: gurgling on his own blood him: and his face is all caved in me: =[ him: they are now stabbing his stomach him: with a screwdriver him: how can a human do this man? me: do u regret it him: yo i dont regret anything.. u live once him: might as well watch someone get murdered [LOL] him: dude holy fuck him: they just stabbed him in the eye him: like 30 times him: wtfffffffffff ihim: i wonder if he can even feel it anymore =[ him: .. they are like laughing | ||
|
Proposal
United States1310 Posts
| ||
|
Dgtl
Canada889 Posts
On December 29 2008 12:48 EmeraldSparks wrote: This makes no sense. The debate is over whether or not the criminal justice system should do <this> or <that>, so appealing to it does nothing. This "debate" is on whether or not these people are human or inhuman and if they deserve human rights. Not on what the justice system should do. :/ | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
On December 29 2008 10:01 qrs wrote: I don't see how it's not. You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial. So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc. What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?' | ||
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
On December 29 2008 13:02 zizou21 wrote: HOLY SHIT I HVE NO OTHER WORDS i made a friend watch it and tell me how it is, here is his feedback: him: FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK him: HOLY SHIT him: THEY JUST PUT THE SCREW DRIVER IN HIS EYE him: AND JABBED IT AROUND FOR LIKE 10 seconds him: this guy is laying in the woods him: gurgling on his own blood him: and his face is all caved in me: =[ him: they are now stabbing his stomach him: with a screwdriver him: how can a human do this man? me: do u regret it him: yo i dont regret anything.. u live once him: might as well watch someone get murdered [LOL] him: dude holy fuck him: they just stabbed him in the eye him: like 30 times him: wtfffffffffff ihim: i wonder if he can even feel it anymore =[ him: .. they are like laughing Same reaction a friend of mine had :S he puked all over his floor though | ||
|
brambolius
Netherlands448 Posts
On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote: HamerD, silent inaction is consent. Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison. nobody said they should be tortured to death. more like tortured untill their dead, but not letting them die from it. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote: HamerD, silent inaction is consent. Let's get this straight. I wouldn't WANT it to happen to them, but if it did happen to them, I wouldn't give a shit. There wouldn't be any moral outrage. I am morally outraged by torture of any creature, but to be honest my moral outrage of their being tortured would be surpassed by my moral outrage of their actions. I wouldn't vote to make torturing torturers the law. So I don't 'consent' to it. Consent is inextricably linked to power...if I could stop the killers from being tortured with one wave of a hand, I might consider it. Anything more, let them burn I say. Also, silent inaction is a tautology. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42676 Posts
On December 29 2008 20:16 brambolius wrote: nobody said they should be tortured to death. more like tortured untill their dead, but not letting them die from it. You're an idiot. | ||
|
zizou21
United States3683 Posts
 and this is coming from a philosophy major | ||
|
Moff
United Kingdom166 Posts
I haven't actually watched the video, i got linked a while back not knowing what it was and just saw a guy with a log on him, when i was told what the link was, i swiftly closed that shit :\ sounds really bad stuff edit; come to think of it, i wouldn't wish anyone the death penalty, not even these guys, they'd suffer a lot less being locked away for the rest of their lives to reflect on what they did, killing them would be giving them the easy way out. | ||
|
brambolius
Netherlands448 Posts
I might be an idiot but at least i'm not a monkey that considers himself an owl. | ||
| ||
