RE: The death penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

thishereboi -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 4:10:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I only happened to see one poll... in that poll they said 56 percent in the UK believed in CP.. .So I am not sure how valid it was. Even at that it seems the younger folks are against, and middle aged to older were for it. It is that way in the US as well... It seems people change their minds as they get older.

I think the UK abolished cp in 1968 or 73.


Butch



Oh ok, thanks.



NorthernGent -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 4:13:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So I am not sure how valid it was.



There have been numerous polls and they are consistent in their results - it's about 50/50.



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 9:39:10 AM)

Thanks NorthernGent... If people were to just read the posts from Europe they would think everyone there was against cp and only us bloodthirsty Americans were far it.

Even though it is outlawed in many countries it does not necessarily represent the majority view of the citizens in those countries.

I don't think there will ever be a time when there is a clear majority either way... especially with the violent world we live in.

Butch



samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 3:50:38 PM)

"You probably havent seen my prior posts, since I havent seen you until redently, but my point of view is that the state (or any given society) CANNOT be hypocritical because society is the only valid determiner of "right and wrong". There are no absolute rights, no universal moral code. "

Excuse me?  Umm, so Nazi Germany is OK with you, Allende in Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union etc?

There is no geist- no collection of individuals where the state miraculously gets rights that an individual doesn't possess.  Feel free to start arguing and come up with a number- 10, 1,000, 10,000.  All merely accidents of geography.

Of course lawyers like to argue that the body of law represents some wonderful achievement of humanity and by extension, lawyers being acolytes of this magnificent pile of knowledge, they too represent humanities highest achievement.  I blow a razzberry at lawyers and people that believe that states have rights that individuals don't possess, because they're the ones who've bought into the big steaming pile of law representing something beyond other accomplishments of individuals.

In terms of their being no moral universal code- try reading Kant.  A moral code evolves from the process of intuiting the world.  Kant has been ahead of science for a few hundred years- I wouldn't count him out just yet.

Sam



CruelNUnsual -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 4:28:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"You probably havent seen my prior posts, since I havent seen you until redently, but my point of view is that the state (or any given society) CANNOT be hypocritical because society is the only valid determiner of "right and wrong". There are no absolute rights, no universal moral code. "

Excuse me?  Umm, so Nazi Germany is OK with you, Allende in Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union etc?

There is no geist- no collection of individuals where the state miraculously gets rights that an individual doesn't possess.  Feel free to start arguing and come up with a number- 10, 1,000, 10,000.  All merely accidents of geography.

Of course lawyers like to argue that the body of law represents some wonderful achievement of humanity and by extension, lawyers being acolytes of this magnificent pile of knowledge, they too represent humanities highest achievement.  I blow a razzberry at lawyers and people that believe that states have rights that individuals don't possess, because they're the ones who've bought into the big steaming pile of law representing something beyond other accomplishments of individuals.

In terms of their being no moral universal code- try reading Kant.  A moral code evolves from the process of intuiting the world.  Kant has been ahead of science for a few hundred years- I wouldn't count him out just yet.

Sam


Since when does "not hypocritical" = "ok"?  Just because there are different moral codes that are internally consistent and viable for a given society doesnt mean that another society's isnt superior. Recognition of different codes and that none are "divinely inspired" isnt the same as believing in moral equivalency.

And I also agree that "states" don't have rights. States/societies are manifestations of the individuals that comprise the state/society, and the individuals enjoy or suffer from those rights.

nothing I have said is inconsistent with Kant. In fact my personal philosophy is a more specific formulation of the Moral Imperative/Categorical Imperative, whichever you prefer. Where he states that maxims should be applied as if they adhere to a Universal Law of Nature, I believe that societal codes are DERIVED from and therefore are always consistent with a Universal Law of Nature..survival of the species. (Derivation from natural laws doesnt mean the codes themselves are universal, anymore than all poker games that use a 52 card deck are the same, even though they ultimately depend on the laws of probability.)



samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 5:13:06 PM)

"Derivation from natural laws doesnt mean the codes themselves are universal, anymore than all poker games that use a 52 card deck are the same, even though they ultimately depend on the laws of probability.)"

Au contraire mon frere- Kant's point about the universality is that for anyone to be able to think, they have to be able to intuit the world using both tables of categories and tables of judgments which is the genesis of Kant's moral code.  In essence, Kant's argument is akin to a naturalistic one of convergent evolution.  Given the same problem, the solutions are going to have a lot in common.  It's a hair splitting point to argue whether this universal moral code was from a creator (I think Kant would take that view) versus convergent evolution, because the end result is going to be pretty similar.

"Since when does "not hypocritical" = "ok"?  Just because there are different moral codes that are internally consistent and viable for a given society doesnt mean that another society's isnt superior. Recognition of different codes and that none are "divinely inspired" isnt the same as believing in moral equivalency."

You're losing me on this one- I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  If right or wrong depend solely on an individual society- then how can one society be superior to another?  What exactly are you using to make this judgment?  The only way to allow this distinction is if there is a fundamental moral code and the degree of "goodness" of a society is how closely they hew to it- otherwise all societies are functionally equivalent.

Sam



Politesub53 -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 5:19:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I may be mistaken but i think you will find that the majority of citizens in the UK support the death penalty

Butch


I have never given much thought to whether they did or not, but now that you say that, I am surprised they do. Now I am really going to show my ignorance and ask if they still have the death penalty.


Butch was close, the death penaly for most crimes was abolished in 1969, I think. The act started going through parliament a few years earlier. Although some crimes, such as Treason and Piracy with violence still had the death penalty until 1998. The last execution was in 1964. 




CruelNUnsual -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 6:02:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Derivation from natural laws doesnt mean the codes themselves are universal, anymore than all poker games that use a 52 card deck are the same, even though they ultimately depend on the laws of probability.)"

Au contraire mon frere- Kant's point about the universality is that for anyone to be able to think, they have to be able to intuit the world using both tables of categories and tables of judgments which is the genesis of Kant's moral code.  In essence, Kant's argument is akin to a naturalistic one of convergent evolution.  Given the same problem, the solutions are going to have a lot in common.  It's a hair splitting point to argue whether this universal moral code was from a creator (I think Kant would take that view) versus convergent evolution, because the end result is going to be pretty similar.

"Since when does "not hypocritical" = "ok"?  Just because there are different moral codes that are internally consistent and viable for a given society doesnt mean that another society's isnt superior. Recognition of different codes and that none are "divinely inspired" isnt the same as believing in moral equivalency."

You're losing me on this one- I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  If right or wrong depend solely on an individual society- then how can one society be superior to another?  What exactly are you using to make this judgment?  The only way to allow this distinction is if there is a fundamental moral code and the degree of "goodness" of a society is how closely they hew to it- otherwise all societies are functionally equivalent.

Sam


I still disagree there is any conflict between what I said and Kant.

\You must be kidding not understanding how one society's code can be superior to another. Individuals with necessarily limited information compose a society, and they can certainly make mistakes about what is optimal for themselves, much less what is optimal for a different society. Im not sure what judgement your asking about. My judgement that a code can be superior? I just explained that. How does an individual society determine its is superior?  All think they are, or they would change their code, obviously. Survival is what determines which is actually superior.




samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 7:06:24 PM)

"All think they are, or they would change their code, obviously. Survival is what determines which is actually superior."

Sieg Heil! 

I have no idea what Genghis Khan's rallying cry was- but he'd have agreed with you. 



CruelNUnsual -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 7:53:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"All think they are, or they would change their code, obviously. Survival is what determines which is actually superior."

Sieg Heil! 

I have no idea what Genghis Khan's rallying cry was- but he'd have agreed with you. 



Its underlies every complex organism, including societies.



samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 7:57:14 PM)

I'm sorry- but survival is not a viable metric to measure either the health or how advanced a society is.  Barbarism does fine- it's just static.



CruelNUnsual -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 8:24:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I'm sorry- but survival is not a viable metric to measure either the health or how advanced a society is.  Barbarism does fine- it's just static.


Orly. Why dont you point out the great number of barbaric societies that have thrived. 

Survival is not a metric to measure health or advancements, I agree, but it is the only metric of success.



samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 9:00:05 PM)

"Survival is not a metric to measure health or advancements, I agree, but it is the only metric of success."

Nonsense.  How long was Italy in barbarism after the fall of the Roman Empire?  Or England- or what's now Germany?  How about China?  Seems to me on the basis of time and headcount- barbarism has it all over our so called civilization.



CruelNUnsual -> RE: The death penalty (5/9/2009 9:07:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Survival is not a metric to measure health or advancements, I agree, but it is the only metric of success."

Nonsense.  How long was Italy in barbarism after the fall of the Roman Empire?  Or England- or what's now Germany?  How about China?  Seems to me on the basis of time and headcount- barbarism has it all over our so called civilization.


I suggest you look up the definition of "survival".



samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/10/2009 7:05:17 AM)

May I suggest that you look up the definition of reductio ad absurdum?



CruelNUnsual -> RE: The death penalty (5/10/2009 8:33:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

May I suggest that you look up the definition of reductio ad absurdum?


I know it well...your point? Nothing in my arguments employs any logical fallacies.



Termyn8or -> RE: The death penalty (5/10/2009 9:57:46 AM)

"Why dont you point out the great number of barbaric societies that have thrived"

I can think of one - ours.

T



samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/10/2009 11:14:20 AM)

"Nothing in my arguments employs any logical fallacies. "

Then I suggest you reread your post 207.  On one hand you argue that a society can be suboptimal based on limited information, and then you argue that survival is the only metric.  Yet barbaric societies thrive on limited information- otherwise they become civilized.  Furthermore- again- if your criterion for success of a society is survival- how do you reconcile these two points of view- i.e. that one society is better than another?

Sam



DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/10/2009 12:00:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

May I suggest that you look up the definition of reductio ad absurdum?


I know it well...your point? Nothing in my arguments employs any logical fallacies.

Now that's funny.



NorthernGent -> RE: The death penalty (5/10/2009 2:34:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Thanks NorthernGent... If people were to just read the posts from Europe they would think everyone there was against cp and only us bloodthirsty Americans were far it.

Even though it is outlawed in many countries it does not necessarily represent the majority view of the citizens in those countries.

I don't think there will ever be a time when there is a clear majority either way... especially with the violent world we live in.

Butch



The thing with England is that it votes conservative in every general election - Scotland and Wales ensure that England is not governed by the Conservative Party for eternity. That party is not particularly conservative on economic matters, but certainly is on law and order. Me - I'm against it. I'm not an eye for an eye type of person, and I think it's convenient to kill murderers because it suggests that murderers are an abberation; and I don't think they are.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875