|
Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/4/2008 5:09:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Ok I have some friends from Norway, several Sami have moved over here. So I will ask. But I don't speak Norweigan so can't really research it.
Sami do not speak Norwegian.
Their language is Finno-Ugric, whereas Norwegian is Germanic, so there is no familial relation between the two languages. As I have noted, there probably used to be a distinction. The word "mord" probably derives from the same root as "murder." But in colloquial use, the two words have become interchangeable. We retain a seperate word for execution ("henrettelse"), thus distinguishing the legally sanctioned form, rather than distinguishing the unsanctioned form. In the criminal code, the word for killing is used, possibly because it is more euphonic.
If you want to research it, by all means do, but the point seems moot.
quote:
I told my views, which you defined as "wrong".
I said that by prevailing Western morals, it seems wrong by way of inconsistency. The assertion that it is wrong is not in my own frame of reference, but the one used in initially framing the law. My objection is to the inconsistency. European countries generally seem to object on the grounds that they find it morally wrong, so that would also tend to suggest that I am not alone in perceiving it to be a violation of mainstream Western moralities. That is not to say that I find it wrong (though I do find it unproductive), and that I have yet to see a convincing justification for it in the frames of reference otherwise employed in the societies that have such legislation in the West.
quote:
Your reasoning for making that was based on fake examples, and misstating my views, and assigning traits to me.
You are misreading what I have stated. And the example was not remembered correctly, but neither was the particular example used in any way relevant to the point being made, which was that law is not an arbiter of what is moral. I do not think I have misstated your views, although I may well have misunderstood them (wouldn't be the first time, and I'm not ashamed to admit an error). However, as for assigning traits to you, I would ask that you give me the relevant passages, as I generally try to avoid that (I prefer to deal with the subject of the posts, rather than the character of the poster). You did (incorrectly) assign traits to me, however, as well as making a few incorrect and defamatory statements about my character that were way over the line, even for me.
In summary: can we try to discuss this topic, rather than arguing, and without levelling unsubstantiated accusations?
I have no stake in changing your opinion, nor in "winning" the argument; if you change my opinion, I have gained from the exchange.
quote:
Please remeber my assertion way back that there is a huge difference between the judging and punishment of an action, by a Jury, in a representative legal system ( Iused all these qualifiers on purpose from the begining) is far different than a person being killed in an alley, caused you to label me as an "Absolutist".
I did not intend to label you an absolutist, and clarified that in my reply to your reply. I mistook your assertion that my angle is too relative as an assertion that it deviated too far from an absolutist postion, and consequently assumed you were forwarding such a position. My apologies for not making that clearer.
In any case, I do remember your assertion quite clearly. And that is where I said that your position places specific demands on which governments are entitled to enforce laws, demands that are arbitrary in nature (i.e. not- so far- substantiated with objective points of reference) and that can be followed to a logical conclusion that the question is one of which people, or how many people, are being represented by the entity that is performing a killing sanctioned by that body of people. If you let me know whether you agree or disagree (and, if so, how) that follows from what you said, then we can resume the discussion from the point where the disagreement arises.
quote:
Now you are trying to pretend you just got confused over the language. I don't buy it, you have shown your self to be way smarter than that, in your many postings.
Thanks for the compliment, but I actually do occasionally miss some things.
My command of those areas of the language that I use extensively has a tendency to cause problems with people assuming that I have equal command of all areas of the language, and that I have the corresponding grasp of colloquialisms, idioms and cultural contexts. It also tends to make people think I don't fuck it up at times, but I do. Particularly at 3-6am local time, which is when a lot of those posts were made. Note also that I usually employ Princeton's online dictionary to make sure I am using key terms in the correct manner, but didn't think to do so this time around, as the topic was only marginally interesting (one of those sigh-and-roll-eyes things, no more).
I do try to be coherent and precise, and have tried to be so in this discussion, as well. However, with my mind on a terminally ill mother, a significant sleep deficit, deteriorating cognitive performance and memory, caring for a dependant, and being in the midst of a medical situation analogous to battling an insurance company to avoid permanent brain damage... well... I haven't been able to do my best.
Guess what?
I'm human, and I make mistakes.
quote:
Which of course all absoluitist postions are. Thats just the way the world is. But that is not at all what I argued.
How about we start that part of the discussion over, then?
You can state your position clearly, I can ask whether I understood you correctly, and then we can go from there?
quote:
What is strange is that you keep asserting it is not your subjective morals that you are appealing to, when in fact you are. you used the word "wrong" several times.
Each use has been with something specific in mind. If you'd care for me to explain them, then just raise those points.
As for my subjective (all morals are subjective) morals, if I were appealing to them, the conclusion would pretty much be: who the fuck cares? It's Japan. They want to kill their citizens? Let them kill their citizens. Not my problem, I don't live there. You do as you wish in your territory, and I'll do as I wish in mine, and beyond that the only shared ground is agreements entered into by both parties. That's a fundamentally isolationist and individualist position.
My reason for reading the thread wasn't my morals. It was that I find it a shame that a country that has a lot of things I admire would still choose to pursue a course of action that I don't see a point to. My reason for entering into the discussion, was that the opinions forwarded in it left something to be desired, in my opinion. Not in terms of moral right or wrong. But in terms of the consistency and universality of principles otherwise espoused in the cultures that most of the posters are from, and in terms of being targetted at goals that are increasingly being viewed as counterproductive and barbaric by the remainder of the Western world. My post for politesub covers the latter bit reasonably well, although it does so with early-morning rhetoric, rather than late-night logic.
Does that clarify things?
I do not judge the morals of others as invalid, but I do have views on certain "universal" principles. Not universal in the sense of being universally accepted, but in the sense of being universally transposable to different context without dependence on value judgments to make assertions about the degree to which the principle is objectively manifest in that context or not. Most people will in turn assign a value judgment to this quantity, and in those cases where my logic has been correct (and presented in a manner that conveys it to the target audience, which I have not managed here) that can help those people to refine their positions in a direction that is congruent with the values and meta-values they wish to espouse. Just as others have done the same for me at times.
In this case, the scope of the factors considered in the course of my reasoning about the death penalty for several years exceeds my ability to convey it in a concise, coherent and complete manner. Consequently, I am forced to rely on an incremental approach that deals with aspects of it, along with attempting to point out inconsistencies (and failing, obviously) to inspire re-evaluation. That is not working particularly well for me, although some posters have indicated off-board that they follow it. Since I don't have a map of the memetic topology of your views on this matter, the distance in views makes this pretty much a shot in the dark to do logically in the manner I've done so far.
I could of course use rhetoric ala Chomsky, and note that I find something odd about endowing the state with the right to kill, or the things I commented to politesub. But I've always felt that rhetoric is best used when the distance is low and the disagreement more a matter of juxtapoing the pieces so that a new configuration becomes self-evident, or when it is used to inspire or state an ideal. Thus, I've attempted logic instead, and failed rather miserably at presenting it well.
quote:
So they are not your morals, because you have a group backing you up in them?
Sorry, but I'm not sure I get what you're saying here.
It seems that you are still trying to make a connection between my morals and my position; except as explained above, that is fruitless. I used to espouse a formalized version of mainstream Western ethics, modified with things I held as self-evident (usually nothing more than following the evolution of a thought through history and assuming that the eventual goal lies along that same line/curve, just a lot further out) and factored into constituent axioms that were organized in a tiered system before re-deriving the imperatives from that. Then I had one of those moments where everything clicks into place (sa, satori, revelation; whatever you wish to call it) and saw a different configuration, proceeding from assumptions that in many areas directly contradict prevailing Western morality. For me to apply my new morals to a debate on ethics wherein the participants adhere to Western morality would be counterproductive, at best. Thus I am reusing the work invested in getting at the fundamentals of the Western moralities and extrapolating their evolution, rather than employing the morality that no Western country would ever dream of sanctioning, let alone implementing. In effect, debating a position that is not mine, but in a paradigm that I am familiar with.
If I missed your point entirely, could you rephrase?
quote:
I do not say you are wrong for having the views you hold on the Death Penalty, I just disagree with them.
Which views would those be, exactly? [:D]
Anyway, disagreement is healthy, as long as it stays constructive; I'm more than happy to discuss the topic, or to let it rest, depending on your preferences (as it would seem we're the only two people still following the thread to any significant extent).
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
