Oppose Abortion and Support The Death Penalty, Hypocrite Much?

CuriousChild
CuriousChild's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Oppose Abortion and Support The Death Penalty, Hypocrite Much?

Alrighty, This is my first post since entering this lovley world of fellow atheists. And well, being a youngster with a shitload of questions- I couldn't help but wonder this morning why the fuck are people against Abortion, yet; they support the death penalty? It just doesn't make any sense that these "pro-lifers" are for killing people? It's like being a feminist, and in the NWWL! (Naked woman's wrestling league).

Okay, Ill admit the obvious: These sick fucks who are sentenced to death are rapists and murder's, and at the result at their own actions. and yes the unborn "child" (fetus) dies from the actions of another. Yeah, i'll admit that the "child" (fetus) has done nothing warranting such a harsh penalty, but technically the baby isn't REALLY alive, right Which means it doesnt feel any pain! Correct me if im wrong , because well I'm no smartass docter but; There is no baby to hurt. First an embryo, then later a fetus! First trimester abortions hapen before cells are specialized. Therefore, there can be no pain because there are no nerve cells. Any pain felt after that would be instantanouess. There's never any conscious pain equivalent to what a child would experience.

Here's my take: I'm pro-choice. And I believe that when used for good intentions abortion is a great tool for a mistake, or put it this way; what if it was your daughter who was raped? Abortion is a good solution, when you have no other choice. And a lot of my middle school friends tell me "Dominique, what about adoption!" well, to that I say look at any orphanage, it ain't like one of those tv/movie orphanage where some ginger bitch is singin "tommorow tommorow i love you tomorrow" No sir, it's hell for most kids.  The latest UNICEF numbers for 2008 indicate that there are an estimated 132 million orphans in the world. And as for the good ol' US of A; There are approximately 500,000 children in the United States foster care system. So out of those 500k do you honestly, HONESTLY believe that each and every single one will be adopted? No. These kids will never experience a birthday party at chucke' cheese, public school wearing brand name clothing, their first car, etc. Nah, they'll be in there poor run down little orphanage, Waiting. Hoping. Praying to god that isn't there, that maybe, somone will love them and care for them enough to take them home.

As for the death penalty, I haven't much to say... Aside from the fact that these fuckers don't deserve to take the easy way out and die. They deserve to suffer, and rot in jail.

 

I'm posting this because I wan't to know what you guys think, How you feel about both.

 

*Keep in mind that this is my first post and im not that advanced in writing and I'm not  Mr. intelligence.*

 

Please feel free to correct mean in any way, and keep me informed, im here to learn! =D

-Curiousty Killed the cat-
-Ignorance Killed the kid-

~Dominique Danger Dorantez~

14 year old, with a lot of questions.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Not going to go into much

Not going to go into much detail, or respond to challenges (since these topics can go on in endless debate), but I'll give you my perspective, and 'correct' you where I disagree or would say things differently.

CuriousChild wrote:
I couldn't help but wonder this morning why the fuck are people against Abortion, yet; they support the death penalty? It just doesn't make any sense that these "pro-lifers" are for killing people?

If you consider that the term 'pro-life' is just a PR/propaganda tool, and that their real position is 'pro-Christian-dogma', then the mystery vanishes. There are lots of possible motivations, depending on their particular flavour of dogma, here are a few possibilities: If you abort, then the baby can't be baptized, so you're condemning them to Hell, whereas if they die naturally, it was God's choice to take them, and they'll go to heaven. A criminal has had his chance to repent. If he's Christian, he'll end up in heaven, no loss. If he's not, he'll end up in hell where he belongs. Also, there are arguments along the lines of, 'the innocent baby shouldn't have to pay for the sexual sins of the immoral mother'. God endows the state with the power to execute criminals without it counting as 'murder', but babies aren't criminals, so killing them violates a commandment. Etc. It's all just irrational dogma with no real logic to it. It's not about being 'pro-life' at all.

Quote:
Okay, Ill admit the obvious: These sick fucks who are sentenced to death are rapists and murder's, and at the result at their own actions.

Correction: *Some* of them are sick fucks. Some of them are innocent and wrongly imprisoned. The stats on this would surprise you, so I recommend googling it for yourself. Especially in states with the death penalty, the percentage of people who are later found innocent is astonishingly high.

Quote:
but technically the baby isn't REALLY alive, right Which means it doesnt feel any pain!

Technically, the fetus is alive. It is also human. But the relevant category here is whether it is a 'person' under the legal definition. The question is where should we define that a human becomes a 'person' deserving of legal protection of rights? Also, there are abortions performed where the fetus can feel 'pain', as in a nervous reaction in response to injury, but the relevant category here is 'suffering', which is more about being *conscious* of pain (which you mentioned but did not focus on directly). If there's no consciousness of pain, then it's more like an automatic stimulus-response or reflex. The question here is where do you draw the line between non-conscious and conscious? This is a biological/medical/ethical question, and currently the lines are not cleanly drawn. However, from my perspective, it is clear that undifferentiated cells are not conscious, whereas a newborn is as conscious as any other newborn animal, and so can certainly suffer. In between those two, it's a bit trickier to draw the line. This 'consciousness' question has strong implications for the 'person' question, so the two aspects are tightly intertwined in regards to abortion, but they are still technically two different aspects.

Quote:
And a lot of my middle school friends tell me "Dominique, what about adoption!"

To such people I challenge them, "Did you adopt? Are you planning on having kids, or adopting?" 99% of them are hypocrites. They just want more souls for Jesus, they don't care what actually happens to the kid after it is born.

Quote:
well, to that I say look at any orphanage,

Good arguments here. It's just that they don't care what happens to them after they're born, because it's not really about improving life in this world, it's about the afterlife, which is tied to the concepts of original sin and the conditions of salvation. Depending on their particular dogma in regards to sin/salvation, they'll have slightly different positions on abortion.

Quote:
As for the death penalty, I haven't much to say... Aside from the fact that these fuckers don't deserve to take the easy way out and die. They deserve to suffer, and rot in jail.

Here I strongly disagree. The only justification for punishment, in my view, is prevention of further crime and protection of others' rights. If we are punishing for the purpose of causing unnecessary harm or suffering, I consider that unethical. What is the point? Revenge? Are we going to justify torture as well? It's totally unnecessary and regressive. If you want to prevent someone from ever committing further crimes, lock them up for life. Ideally, we should strive for actual rehabilitation where possible (which it isn't always possible/safe), but absent that option, execution has no ethical justification over life imprisonment.

Two of my major objections to the death penalty are: It does not actually prevent crime, compared to life imprisonment. And, you cannot guarantee that a) the guilty verdict will always be correct and unbiased, and b) future evidence won't arise to acquit the person. If one innocent person is killed, then how is that not state-sanctioned murder/manslaughter? Who gets punished for that? Not the judge or jury, I can assure you. In fact, no one does. The punishment itself becomes an unpunished crime. The death penalty is both useless and harmful. In my book, that's a double-whammy of evil.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I am against both abortion

I am against both abortion and the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 


Zombie Jesus
Zombie Jesus's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2010-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I am pro-choice

My reasons for supporting abortions would be based on personal experiences rather than whether the fetus can feel pain or not.I've lived in various countries and as a child I was exposed to the cruel reality that kids raised in the streets live.There is nothing quite like seeing true misery with your own eyes. As for the death penalty, I am against it for the same reasons that Mr. Natural mentioned.

All forms of tampering with human beings, getting at them, shaping them against their will to your own pattern, all thought control and conditioning is, therefore, a denial of that in men which makes them men and their values ultimate.
Isaiah Berlin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Why is someone a hypocrite

Why is someone a hypocrite when they are in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion but not a hypocrite when it's the other way around?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
I am against the death

I am against the death penalty for political reasons, not out of sympathy with the perpetrator.

If you think anybody should be killed, you go ahead and kill them. Then face what's coming to you next.

I just don't want either the court, the state or the government to have that kind of power. Not under any circumstance.

The question of abortion is, as far as I am concerned, a decision which falls on the one that's pregnant, i.e. the woman in questioning. Everbody else - unless they are specifically asked for their opinion - should just shut the fuck up. If they want to do something constructive, they can advocate for better educaton on sexuality and contraceptives.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
 Marquis, If you are

 Marquis, If you are against the government having the right kill "Not under any circumstance" then by extension you have to be against the existence of the military. Compared to the thousands of deaths, probably even innocent deaths, caused by the U.S. military yearly, the number of people killed by capital punishment is almost insignificant. The government has to have the power to kill to maintain a stable state. I morally support their right to do so under due process of law which uses much more discretion in killing people than our military does. I however am against capital punishment only because it is expensive. The tax payer would save millions of dollars a year to just let these people rot in prison which accomplishes the same goal of punishment and getting them off the street.

@Zombie Jesus: That is a bit of a ridiculous reason to support abortion. I'm sure the vast majority of those children despite their living condition would rather not be dead. Do you really think their lives suck so much that they would rather be dead? Maybe you should ask them if they feel the same way.

@curious child: Movement develops at week 8 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/NSECTIONGROUP=2 This means that the fetus has at that point developed nerves and most likely feels pain. First trimester abortions do not necessarily occur before the fetus's cells specialize which happens within 6-7 weeks Watch a video of an abortion being recorded by an ultrasound machine. Although all of those videos that I have seen were created by religious nut jobs with an agenda, It's impossible to say that the fetus does not feel pain considering the violent response it gives to the abortion process.

and once again I think the "orphan's lives are hell" argument is rather stupid. Yea there are huge problems with the system but i doubt that many kids would rather never have existed than go through that experience.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist wrote:you

liberatedatheist wrote:

you have to be against the existence of the military

 

Which, of course, I am. But that wasn't the issue here.

(On a sidenote, and if I am not much mistaken, the whole idea of the amandment which deals with "the right to own a gun" was specifically created to insure against a situation, such as was the case in most European states at the time, where the government would keep a standing army in order to keep its own people in check and order; while plundering them for resources. Instead, in the young American state, the ownership of guns was thought to be enough for "the people" to be able to spontaneously form a militia that could remove the government by force if necessary. Not much chance of that happening nowadays, eh? The fate of some sponateously formed militia that would march on Washington DC in order to remove the corrupted government seems pretty sealed from the onset.)


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Why is someone

Gauche wrote:

Why is someone a hypocrite when they are in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion but not a hypocrite when it's the other way around?

Easy, because I don't claim to be 'pro-life'. My reasons are for the prevention of unnecessary harm and suffering of persons. I don't consider fetuses as legal persons, nor can they suffer. Adults on the other hand are persons and can suffer harm (such as unnecessary loss of life). There's no hypocrisy involved, because my reasons are not their reasons.

[Edit: Well, so much for not responding to challenges. (Who's the hypocrite now, natural? Eye-wink ) Let's just say if I can keep it short I might respond.]

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Gauche

natural wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Why is someone a hypocrite when they are in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion but not a hypocrite when it's the other way around?

Easy, because I don't claim to be 'pro-life'. My reasons are for the prevention of unnecessary harm and suffering of persons. I don't consider fetuses as legal persons, nor can they suffer. Adults on the other hand are persons and can suffer harm (such as unnecessary loss of life). There's no hypocrisy involved, because my reasons are not their reasons.

Because someone claims to be pro life doesn't mean they must be in any circumstance. A person who is pro-life might kill someone in self defense. Will you call them a hypocrite? On the other hand one who does not oppose abortion will call themselves pro-choice but they don't think you should be able to make absolutely any choice. To say so would be ignoring the nuances of their position.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I must be the weirdo in the

I must be the weirdo in the lot because I am pro choice and pro death penalty.

 

 

Basically, I don't agree with the idea that prisons should be about reform.   The Death Penalty shouldn't be about deterrant either. (Although it will certainly deter that person from ever committing any crimes again.) Crime should be punished.  And murder should be punished by death.   "It's a hell of a thing to kill a man.  You take away everything he's got and everything he'll ever have" Clint Eastwood - The Unforgiven
 

Maybe before you can apply the death penalty there should be a higher standard such as DNA evidence, etc.. before a death penalty can be applied thereby reducing the chance of mistakes to a negligible amount. 

Many of the reversals in cases where people were found to be innocent were as a result of cold cases being reopened (many jurisdictions fought this tooth and nail) and modern DNA forensics applied which resulted in exhoneration.   So, with modern science being applied I think that we're closer to being able to conclude the guilt of someone in these cases like rape and murder with a much better chance of getting it right than without scientific techniques.

I would rather have the state sanction executions than a citizen going out and taking justice into his own hands because he 'thinks someone needs to die'..   talk about the potential for getting the wrong person or irrational beliefs resulting in another murder.   

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The horrible thing about our

The horrible thing about our species is that it still has yet to put a leash on emotionalism and make the priority pragmatism.

I am for abortion, for the simple reason that it is not my body. I think it is horrible that the right always tries to make those in support of reproductive rights out to be monsters as if girls/women set out to get pregnant just so they can throw a party and shout, "I GET TO HAVE AN ABORTION.......YIPPY"

And I am against the death penalty, not because there are people like Ted Bundy or Bin Laden, but because the system does not have independant quality control to prevent the railroading of the poor accused.

There should be no state run labs for fingerprints or DNA or ballistics. These labs should be blind and separate and independent and case NUMBERS, not names should be sent to these independent labs to insure that no bias creeps into a case.

There is just too much that already is flawed in our defense system that does not protect the disadvantaged. If there was always a 100% accuracy in death penalty cases with the defendants having the same quality defense as OJ or "Baretta" (forgot the actors name) then I could be for it. But most people who get accused in death penalty cases do not have those resources.

Not to mention, even if that were the case, after someone has been put in prison, they are no longer a threat, especially if put in a cell by themselves with no contact with others. So the death penalty, even if I were for it, would go beyond merely stopping and prevention, but becomes an act of revenge.

In the end it is not a deterrent and is nothing more than revenge. And from what I understand, it costs more money to go from a death penalty conviction, to the actual execution after all the appeals run out, than it does to give them life without parole.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Again, my argument that the

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
where the hell is the new

where the hell is the new reply button.. oh, there it is.

Anyways... I support the death penalty and the woman's/mother's right to choose... does that make me a hypocrite? I think not.

For that matter, I support Jack Kevorkian being appointed to ANY major bioethics commitee on the planet- would that he had enough physical and mental health left in him to pursue such a career.

Quote:
It's like being a feminist, and in the NWWL!

I don't care for feminism, as it is heavily infiltrated by strait-man-hating dykes and college-undergraduate pseudo-intellectuals (as well as a certain anti-porn legal scholar)... but let's play devil's advocate here...  why would a feminist necessarily be anti-sex? Or even anti-porn?

There's a select pie slice of feminists who avoid this sort of bullshit, basically... and they aren't necessarily strait or gay..

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I very much agree with

I very much agree with Kervorkian too.

People deserve the right to choose their own end of life scenario.

Yes, checks and balances need to be in place to prevent abuse but no one should be forced to suffer for an indeterminant period of time should they not choose to simply because other people don't like it.

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:Again, my

Sterculius wrote:

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

What's wrong with vigilantism? There is no more fitting a fate for (genuinely) violent, recidivist felons than... violent death. It's a fate vastly better than what most of their victims get during their lifetimes. It is the ONE thing my state does correctly- the electric chair. Preferrably an electric chair that doesn't necessarily work the first it's used... or even a Comfort Chair, for that matter.

Their guilt should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, however, and that last sentence in your post is highly agreeable.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:Again, my

Sterculius wrote:

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

Punishmet is a tricky word. It is optimal in a utopia to want to correct a behavior, but you cant always do that. Sometimes all you can do is contain someone. "Punishment" implies that it will deter others and that is not the case. I think we should work on prevention, environmental living standards and education BEFORE someone gets caught in the revolving door. But I think we can and should also, if someone makes a mistake in life, also provide education and oportunity so that they don't have tunnel vision.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sterculius

Brian37 wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

Punishmet is a tricky word. It is optimal in a utopia to want to correct a behavior, but you cant always do that. Sometimes all you can do is contain someone. "Punishment" implies that it will deter others and that is not the case. I think we should work on prevention, environmental living standards and education BEFORE someone gets caught in the revolving door. But I think we can and should also, if someone makes a mistake in life, also provide education and oportunity so that they don't have tunnel vision.

 

How easily will pain and suffering deter others from trampling over another's person's inherent desire for freedom? Well... let me show you the statistics for theft and robbery in Saudi Arabia... as well as elsewhere in Asia. It's pretty damn slim, for the most part.

It may sound startling to some, but you can send someone to "Room 101" and expect better behavior out of them when they come out.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
The problem

The problem with vigillantism is that an investigation made by the authorities with the help of forensics and labs has a higher chance of producing surety and a trial is in place to provide a check to make sure that it was done properly.  In our society we have determined that  it's not up to an individual to play judge, jury, and in the vigillante's case executioner.    How many grieving husbands might be tempted to take the law into their own hands with just a suspicion that person X did it and kill the wrong man without due process of law.

As for the method of the DP we do have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.  
So, quick and painless aka lethal injection works just fine by me.  Just deliver the punishment.
I wouldn't consider a "WORKING" Electric Chair to be cruel and unusual btw.

 

 

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:The problem

Sterculius wrote:

The problem with vigillantism is that an investigation made by the authorities with the help of forensics and labs has a higher chance of producing surety and a trial is in place to provide a check to make sure that it was done properly.  In our society we have determined that  it's not up to an individual to play judge, jury, and in the vigillante's case executioner.    How many grieving husbands might be tempted to take the law into their own hands with just a suspicion that person X did it and kill the wrong man without due process of law.

As for the method of the DP we do have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.  
So, quick and painless aka lethal injection works just fine by me.  Just deliver the punishment.
I wouldn't consider a "WORKING" Electric Chair to be cruel and unusual btw.

  

Yes... I do think we should obey the laws on the books, not the ones whichever party feels like pulling out of their respective asses whenever they feel like it.

You wouldn't consider an electric chair that? I become more startlingly impressed...

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sterculius

Brian37 wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

Punishmet is a tricky word. It is optimal in a utopia to want to correct a behavior, but you cant always do that. Sometimes all you can do is contain someone. "Punishment" implies that it will deter others and that is not the case. I think we should work on prevention, environmental living standards and education BEFORE someone gets caught in the revolving door. But I think we can and should also, if someone makes a mistake in life, also provide education and oportunity so that they don't have tunnel vision.

 

 

Punishment might have a tertiary deterring effect but that's really not my focus and it is not really implied by the defnition of the word.

"The word is the abstract substantivation of the verb to punish, which is recorded in English since 1340, deriving from Old French puniss-, an extended form of the stem of punir "to punish," from Latin punire "inflict a penalty on, cause pain for some offense," earlier poenire, from poena "penalty, punishment of great loss" " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

Punishment for me is simple.   Cause and Effect.    The Cause is that you have denied someone else their rights.   Therefore the consequence is that your rights will be taken from you.    The magnitude of the loss of rights is comensurate with the magnitude of the rights taken.

In the case of premeditated murder you have taken the ultimate rights from the person and therefore you deserve to have all of your rights taken from you.   I interrpet that as being death because you have taken away even their biological processes and the same should be taken from you.

I agree that prevention and eductation before such acts occur should be the primary focus and for lower magnitude offenses more education and reformation may take place but always the loss of rights must accompany a convicted crime. 

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:the justice

Sterculius wrote:

the justice system should be about punishment

"Punishment" is Judeo-Christian nonsense. As is the idea of "justice". There is no "justice" any more than there is a God.

The penal system should be about restoring the normal order so that everybody can get on with business as usual.

I kind of like it the way it works in Norway. And our crime rates are - per capita - only about 5% of that in America.

So we have 1/20th of the crime and about 2,000% more atheists. Go figure.

 

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

Punishmet is a tricky word. It is optimal in a utopia to want to correct a behavior, but you cant always do that. Sometimes all you can do is contain someone. "Punishment" implies that it will deter others and that is not the case. I think we should work on prevention, environmental living standards and education BEFORE someone gets caught in the revolving door. But I think we can and should also, if someone makes a mistake in life, also provide education and oportunity so that they don't have tunnel vision.

 

How easily will pain and suffering deter others from trampling over another's person's inherent desire for freedom? Well... let me show you the statistics for theft and robbery in Saudi Arabia... as well as elsewhere in Asia. It's pretty damn slim, for the most part.

It may sound startling to some, but you can send someone to "Room 101" and expect better behavior out of them when they come out.

Ok, if you want to allow government to be the criminal instead of risking your neighbor being the criminal and you don't mind being silenced as an atheist(because if you are an atheist living in Saudi Arabia, that would be risky) You'd give up your right to say "Allah is bullshit" via force of government just so you wouldn't have to worry about your neighbor robbing you?

It is much easier to go after your neighbor when they harm you, than it is to change a dictatorship that has absolute control over you.

I am not with you on that. I am not going to give up my freedom for security. I would rather fear my neighbor than my government.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Sterculius

Marquis wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

the justice system should be about punishment

"Punishment" is Judeo-Christian nonsense. As is the idea of "justice". There is no "justice" any more than there is a God.

The penal system should be about restoring the normal order so that everybody can get on with business as usual.

I kind of like it the way it works in Norway. And our crime rates are - per capita - only about 5% of that in America.

So we have 1/20th of the crime and about 2,000% more atheists. Go figure.

 

 

 

 

Actually our legal system ultimately comes from the roman system more than anything else which is anything but judeo-christian.

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There are lots of things

There are lots of things that can kill me and to worry about it all my life is absurd. I doubt either you or I as atheists would value living under a government that would feed us and protect us with the condition that we don't question it.

I am sure North Korea has little crime. But it also has tons of poverty and people get yanked off the street without any semblance of legal recourse, comparatively than to that of countries in the west. The government even murders citizens who have been caught with cell phones.

If crime is your issue and you think you'd be welcome in Saudi Arabia as an open atheist, try it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Kapkao

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

Punishmet is a tricky word. It is optimal in a utopia to want to correct a behavior, but you cant always do that. Sometimes all you can do is contain someone. "Punishment" implies that it will deter others and that is not the case. I think we should work on prevention, environmental living standards and education BEFORE someone gets caught in the revolving door. But I think we can and should also, if someone makes a mistake in life, also provide education and oportunity so that they don't have tunnel vision.

 

How easily will pain and suffering deter others from trampling over another's person's inherent desire for freedom? Well... let me show you the statistics for theft and robbery in Saudi Arabia... as well as elsewhere in Asia. It's pretty damn slim, for the most part.

It may sound startling to some, but you can send someone to "Room 101" and expect better behavior out of them when they come out.

Ok, if you want to allow government to be the criminal instead of risking your neighbor being the criminal and you don't mind being silenced as an atheist(because if you are an atheist living in Saudi Arabia, that would be risky) You'd give up your right to say "Allah is bullshit" via force of government just so you wouldn't have to worry about your neighbor robbing you?

It is much easier to go after your neighbor when they harm you, than it is to change a dictatorship that has absolute control over you.

I am not with you on that. I am not going to give up my freedom for security. I would rather fear my neighbor than my government.

 

There's some error here too.

 

The government is not being a criminal.   The government is being an independent arbiter.    Sure it might be easier to 'just go after your neighbor'  but there is a greater margin of error.    So you go kill him, and then they decide you were in the wrong (indeed maybe you were) so they go after you and so on.   The system you propose is irrational in that it increases chaos by leaving the law in an individual's hands.

The next error is that you again appeal to consequences and imply that having a government mete out punishments necessarily implies tyrrany and loss of freedom.   I have news for you.   We have never lived in an absolutely free country and the country does just fine.    In addition you err in jumping to the conclusion that I must give up all my freedoms to have absolute security against my neighbor.   There is a causal disconnect here.

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:Brian37

Sterculius wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

Again, my argument that the end of the justice system should be about punishment.

What constitutes a proper punishment for murder?   I don't think that there's any one right answer on that other than what society deems to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with revenge that is executed in an orderly fashion by the state.  It's better than vigilantism.

Calling the DP revenge is nothing more than an emotional argument anyway.   Most of the argument given is an appeal to consequences.

You're saying that if one innocent person dies then the rest of the times that guilty murders are rightfully put to death is nullified?

I do agree that eliminating bias by having independent labs perform the lab work blind is a great idea.

Punishmet is a tricky word. It is optimal in a utopia to want to correct a behavior, but you cant always do that. Sometimes all you can do is contain someone. "Punishment" implies that it will deter others and that is not the case. I think we should work on prevention, environmental living standards and education BEFORE someone gets caught in the revolving door. But I think we can and should also, if someone makes a mistake in life, also provide education and oportunity so that they don't have tunnel vision.

 

How easily will pain and suffering deter others from trampling over another's person's inherent desire for freedom? Well... let me show you the statistics for theft and robbery in Saudi Arabia... as well as elsewhere in Asia. It's pretty damn slim, for the most part.

It may sound startling to some, but you can send someone to "Room 101" and expect better behavior out of them when they come out.

Ok, if you want to allow government to be the criminal instead of risking your neighbor being the criminal and you don't mind being silenced as an atheist(because if you are an atheist living in Saudi Arabia, that would be risky) You'd give up your right to say "Allah is bullshit" via force of government just so you wouldn't have to worry about your neighbor robbing you?

It is much easier to go after your neighbor when they harm you, than it is to change a dictatorship that has absolute control over you.

I am not with you on that. I am not going to give up my freedom for security. I would rather fear my neighbor than my government.

 

There's some error here too.

 

The government is not being a criminal.   The government is being an independent arbiter.    Sure it might be easier to 'just go after your neighbor'  but there is a greater margin of error.    So you go kill him, and then they decide you were in the wrong (indeed maybe you were) so they go after you and so on.   The system you propose is irrational in that it increases chaos by leaving the law in an individual's hands.

The next error is that you again appeal to consequences and imply that having a government mete out punishments necessarily implies tyrrany and loss of freedom.   I have news for you.   We have never lived in an absolutely free country and the country does just fine.    In addition you err in jumping to the conclusion that I must give up all my freedoms to have absolute security against my neighbor.   There is a causal disconnect here.

 

I still don't see how I am wrong. If your neighbor is more of a concern than the government you live under, than go live in Saudi Arabia. I don't think you'd like it. I know I wouldn't.

Whoe! WHEN did I ever say that we shouldn't have laws?

Quote:
The system you propose is irrational in that it increases chaos by leaving the law in an individual's hands.

Ok, so a might makes right system, which Saudi Arabia works off of makes "the ends justifies the means" moral? Who cares how they stop crime even if they silence dissent in the process. Sounds like appeal to authority to me. The same appeal to authority we accuse the God of Abraham of having? Is that the rule of law you want to live under?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Laws have to exist in a

Laws have to exist in a civil society. I never said we shouldn't have laws. But I am not going to live in a prison just to be feed and clothed just so my government can say to me, don't bitch or complain about anything we do.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I'm not appealing to

I'm not appealing to authority.   That would be if I said.   The US government says that it is just therefore it is just.  (Which I clearly did not).

You keep sidestepping what we're talking about by bringing up Saudi Arabia.  

I'd call that a fine red herring.

Additionally, the Saudi thing is a false dichtomy which you're continually raising by implying that you can't have protection from your neighbor unless you live in a dictatorship.   There are many other possibilities such as the US government which seems to work just fine in generally protecting you from your neighbor or the french government or the brittish etc.

A system of might makes right would be vigillantism.  

A system of laws where we give rights to all people and then if you attempt to violate the rights of others you have rights rescinded is practical.   This has nothing to do with dictatorships or squelching of specific freedoms as an athiest or theist.   It's a practical system for giving a cause and effect relationship to antisocial behavior.

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sterculius wrote:I'm not

Sterculius wrote:

I'm not appealing to authority.   That would be if I said.   The US government says that it is just therefore it is just.  (Which I clearly did not).

You keep sidestepping what we're talking about by bringing up Saudi Arabia.  

I'd call that a fine red herring.

Additionally, the Saudi thing is a false dichtomy which you're continually raising by implying that you can't have protection from your neighbor unless you live in a dictatorship.   There are many other possibilities such as the US government which seems to work just fine in generally protecting you from your neighbor or the french government or the brittish etc.

A system of might makes right would be vigillantism.  

A system of laws where we give rights to all people and then if you attempt to violate the rights of others you have rights rescinded is practical.   This has nothing to do with dictatorships or squelching of specific freedoms as an athiest or theist.   It's a practical system for giving a cause and effect relationship to antisocial behavior.

 

I see what you are saying now. BUT I disagree, I think it is a pendulum. You can go too far in protecting society and I think it can lead to absolute rule. I think it is short sighted to assume it cant.

I think again, while we do want to be practical, I also don't think we can be short sighted. I think our laws should protect the rights of others. I do think however what can miss the point and I often see this from the politically correct again, INTENT vs tactic.

Whatever laws we have are better when consented through checks and balances and the ability to dissent.  My only concern in this is that everyone, including those who disagree with us, and even our fellow citizens who may hate us, we must always keep in mind that power does shift long term. I don't think it is a good idea to try to over correct the steering of the car because it can be driven off the curb.

I think we are both accusing each other of things we arn't saying. I wouldn't always assume that because a law is in place that it is opressive. But I also want in place the ability to change those laws just in case people decide to use those laws in bias mannors against me. To say that never happens is not true.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In a strict general sense

In a strict general sense without speaking about governments, just law.

I think it is important for anyone on any given side of any issue to always remember LONG TERM that laws are something all of us live under. And since powers shift you do not want to make laws that CAN potentially be turned around and used against you.

My philosophy on law is that common ground should be the focus. The common ground that we have is that of not wanting to be harmed. So we have laws against assault, laws against sudden rage murder and laws against pre-meditated murder.

BUT also part of our human common ground is wanting the ability to express our emotions. Common law already says that you cant act out violently, but it at the same time has to allow for human emotion. It puts the responsibility on the individual to accept that they are entitled to their emotions but that they cant act out in voilence because of them.

It is illegal to kill your spouse because you caught her in bed with your best friend. It is illegal to hire a hit man to kill your spouse after finding out they cheated.

WHAT I DONT WANT is a society where I cant say, "Jesus is fiction" or "atheists will burn in hell". If laws against blasphemy are in place it can be very easy for the powers that be to use them against you. So my issue is not intent, but a warning to be careful what you wish for.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sterculius

Brian37 wrote:

Sterculius wrote:

I'm not appealing to authority.   That would be if I said.   The US government says that it is just therefore it is just.  (Which I clearly did not).

You keep sidestepping what we're talking about by bringing up Saudi Arabia.  

I'd call that a fine red herring.

Additionally, the Saudi thing is a false dichtomy which you're continually raising by implying that you can't have protection from your neighbor unless you live in a dictatorship.   There are many other possibilities such as the US government which seems to work just fine in generally protecting you from your neighbor or the french government or the brittish etc.

A system of might makes right would be vigillantism.  

A system of laws where we give rights to all people and then if you attempt to violate the rights of others you have rights rescinded is practical.   This has nothing to do with dictatorships or squelching of specific freedoms as an athiest or theist.   It's a practical system for giving a cause and effect relationship to antisocial behavior.

 

I see what you are saying now. BUT I disagree, I think it is a pendulum. You can go too far in protecting society and I think it can lead to absolute rule. I think it is short sighted to assume it cant.

I think again, while we do want to be practical, I also don't think we can be short sighted. I think our laws should protect the rights of others. I do think however what can miss the point and I often see this from the politically correct again, INTENT vs tactic.

Whatever laws we have are better when consented through checks and balances and the ability to dissent.  My only concern in this is that everyone, including those who disagree with us, and even our fellow citizens who may hate us, we must always keep in mind that power does shift long term. I don't think it is a good idea to try to over correct the steering of the car because it can be driven off the curb.

I think we are both accusing each other of things we arn't saying. I wouldn't always assume that because a law is in place that it is opressive. But I also want in place the ability to change those laws just in case people decide to use those laws in bias mannors against me. To say that never happens is not true.

 

Most of the laws I'm referring to are more on physical and property rights rather than PC crap.

I understand what you're getting at now and I think that givign up rights is something you should think carefully on allowing.
I agree you must not allow yourself to give them up easily because it just gets easier each time and pretty soon you're like wtf - how did we get here.

It was like the Romans who would appoint their 'Dictator' in times of crisis.. well, the last guy never gave up that right and lo and behold you go from a republic to an empire with the stroke of a pen.  

I appreciate the intent of PC but I hate censorship.   I think it's "Nice" to be courteous to each other but it shouldn't be required.

If someone PC doesn't like what I'm saying and they can change the fucking channel or not read my post etc...

I hate the way the film and TV and radio industry handles things talk about a theocracy...   Have you ever seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated"  Talk about us living in Soviet Russia !!!!!   God forbid you see a Vajajay or a Penis on screen or NC-17 here we come...

So, yeah I think we're agreeing by and large just on slightly different sides of the middle maybe?

The price of freedom is eternal vigillance?  Isn't that a quote.
I've also heard it said that America is based on the delicate balance of 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'....

 

 

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Pro-life = Anti-choice.

 

Easy. They want to remove the choice from pregnant women.

 

It isn't as contradictory when you look at it in that scope.

 

I don't see how anyone can be anything but pro-choice without ignoring the reality of the world around them. Backalley abortions are a craptatic thing to force innocent girls to, where they can be injured or killed by mistakes and lack of sanitation.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Zombie Jesus
Zombie Jesus's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2010-01-18
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist

liberatedatheist wrote:

 Marquis, If you are against the government having the right kill "Not under any circumstance" then by extension you have to be against the existence of the military. Compared to the thousands of deaths, probably even innocent deaths, caused by the U.S. military yearly, the number of people killed by capital punishment is almost insignificant. The government has to have the power to kill to maintain a stable state. I morally support their right to do so under due process of law which uses much more discretion in killing people than our military does. I however am against capital punishment only because it is expensive. The tax payer would save millions of dollars a year to just let these people rot in prison which accomplishes the same goal of punishment and getting them off the street.

@Zombie Jesus: That is a bit of a ridiculous reason to support abortion. I'm sure the vast majority of those children despite their living condition would rather not be dead. Do you really think their lives suck so much that they would rather be dead? Maybe you should ask them if they feel the same way.

@curious child: Movement develops at week 8 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/NSECTIONGROUP=2 This means that the fetus has at that point developed nerves and most likely feels pain. First trimester abortions do not necessarily occur before the fetus's cells specialize which happens within 6-7 weeks Watch a video of an abortion being recorded by an ultrasound machine. Although all of those videos that I have seen were created by religious nut jobs with an agenda, It's impossible to say that the fetus does not feel pain considering the violent response it gives to the abortion process.

and once again I think the "orphan's lives are hell" argument is rather stupid. Yea there are huge problems with the system but i doubt that many kids would rather never have existed than go through that experience.

Every human perceive the world differently because no two human beings have the same experiences, our minds and opinions are constructed based on our experiences so I do not believe my reasons are any more/less ridiculous than yours. Maybe you should ask them if they feel blessed to have their skin torn apart every time they ask for a piece of bread because going through that experience is every child's dream.

 

All forms of tampering with human beings, getting at them, shaping them against their will to your own pattern, all thought control and conditioning is, therefore, a denial of that in men which makes them men and their values ultimate.
Isaiah Berlin


CuriousChild
CuriousChild's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Just Curious....

I'm Just curious to know, what exactly makes you 'pro-death penalty' people to feel so strongly about it? It just doesn't make any sense to me. The idea and the practice of fighting murder with murder just seems so stupid. Why must we make revenge? What ever happened to justice?

-Curiousty Killed the cat-
-Ignorance Killed the kid-

~Dominique Danger Dorantez~

14 year old, with a lot of questions.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

CuriousChild wrote:

I'm Just curious to know, what exactly makes you 'pro-death penalty' people to feel so strongly about it? It just doesn't make any sense to me. The idea and the practice of fighting murder with murder just seems so stupid. Why must we make revenge? What ever happened to justice?

 

It beats me. The alarmingly high number of people put to death THEN later found innocent is enough a reason for me to decry it.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:It beats me.

ClockCat wrote:

It beats me. The alarmingly high number of people put to death THEN later found innocent is enough a reason for me to decry it.

 

Considering the average death row in-mates are actually in prison for 20-25yrs BEFORE they finally get executed... I just dont understand how they cannot prove their innocence in that amount of time

What Would Kharn Do?


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:natural

Gauche wrote:

natural wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Why is someone a hypocrite when they are in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion but not a hypocrite when it's the other way around?

Easy, because I don't claim to be 'pro-life'. My reasons are for the prevention of unnecessary harm and suffering of persons. I don't consider fetuses as legal persons, nor can they suffer. Adults on the other hand are persons and can suffer harm (such as unnecessary loss of life). There's no hypocrisy involved, because my reasons are not their reasons.

Because someone claims to be pro life doesn't mean they must be in any circumstance. A person who is pro-life might kill someone in self defense. Will you call them a hypocrite?

Yes. If their position is not actually pro-life, then they shouldn't pretend that it is. If it's more nuanced then that, then they should go with the nuance. Pro-fetus-life, or something like that. The reason they don't do that is because they are trying to win propaganda points. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make them hypocritical.

Quote:
On the other hand one who does not oppose abortion will call themselves pro-choice but they don't think you should be able to make absolutely any choice. To say so would be ignoring the nuances of their position.

I see your point, but then you don't hear pro-choice saying things like "Choice is sacred", whereas a pro-lifer will say "Life is sacred". It is well-known that in the phrase 'pro choice' that the choice is specifically in regards to 'a woman's choice to have an abortion'. This is what the pro choicers all say. This is not so with the 'pro life' crowd, who will go out of their way to blur the lines and claim to be on the 'righteous' side of 'sacred life', without being clear that they are only really concerned with the life of the fetus to be born, and they don't care about it afterwards.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

It beats me. The alarmingly high number of people put to death THEN later found innocent is enough a reason for me to decry it.

 

Considering the average death row in-mates are actually in prison for 20-25yrs BEFORE they finally get executed... I just dont understand how they cannot prove their innocence in that amount of time

Cuz they're in freaking prison?! And most of them are poor with crap lawyers. Who's on the outside to fight for them? They get railroaded, often for racist reasons, and that's the end of it. The system doesn't work for them. They've been decided guilty before the trial even began. Their crap lawyers barely lift a finger to fight for them. The system sucks and is corrupt. "If it's a poor chump, who cares if he's executed? As long as we get to see *somebody* fry." Reminds me of a Bob Dylan song. Happens far more often than you would normally expect. Texas is one of the worst, and they execute the most.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


StrawberryJam
atheist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-01-22
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

It beats me. The alarmingly high number of people put to death THEN later found innocent is enough a reason for me to decry it.

 

Considering the average death row in-mates are actually in prison for 20-25yrs BEFORE they finally get executed... I just dont understand how they cannot prove their innocence in that amount of time

DNA has already shown many a false conviction. And for people that lived before this was a viable way to prove their innocence, I guess it sucked to be them.


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zombie Jesus wrote:Every

Zombie Jesus wrote:

Every human perceive the world differently because no two human beings have the same experiences, our minds and opinions are constructed based on our experiences so I do not believe my reasons are any more/less ridiculous than yours. Maybe you should ask them if they feel blessed to have their skin torn apart every time they ask for a piece of bread because going through that experience is every child's dream.

 

Alright yea their lives suck but a crappy life is still better than never having existed, and if you disagree with that it is still not your call to make. Also, even if some people would rather have not been born than live a crappy life as a child, it is inappropriate to use this as a reason to generalize abortion as being acceptable. There are some defendable reasons to be pro-choice, i just think this is one of the worst ones that exists.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


Sterculius
Silver Member
Sterculius's picture
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-01-05
User is offlineOffline
StrawberryJam wrote:The

StrawberryJam wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

It beats me. The alarmingly high number of people put to death THEN later found innocent is enough a reason for me to decry it.

 

Considering the average death row in-mates are actually in prison for 20-25yrs BEFORE they finally get executed... I just dont understand how they cannot prove their innocence in that amount of time

DNA has already shown many a false conviction. And for people that lived before this was a viable way to prove their innocence, I guess it sucked to be them.

 

I'm fully in favor of revisiting cases where DNA evidence can now be examined with modern techniques.
I as a taxpayer think it's a good thing to go ahead and pay a little money so that false convictions can be overturned.
Going forward I don't see this as much of a problem since only in the most corner case will you see falsified labwork. 

But going to a blind lab which is cross-verified would help to take care of that.

As for curious child.   You equivocated perhaps unintentionally when you stated, "Why would you want to fight murder with murder?"
The death penalty is not by definition murder.   The state is only enacting a sanctioned punishment which happens to be death.

 

Again, I believe crime should be punished with a level comensuerate with the degree of rights removed from the victim.
If a kid spraypaints a business or vandalizes a window then you're talking about monetary compensation and fines in most cases.

If someone murders someone they have taken away every right (even the right to biological existence) from that person and if they are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt (and you can add in more stringent scientific evidence requirements to make sure innocent don't get the chair) then that person deserves to lose all of their rights including their biological existence.

 

 

"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Gauche

natural wrote:

Gauche wrote:

 

Because someone claims to be pro life doesn't mean they must be in any circumstance. A person who is pro-life might kill someone in self defense. Will you call them a hypocrite?

Yes. If their position is not actually pro-life, then they shouldn't pretend that it is. If it's more nuanced then that, then they should go with the nuance. Pro-fetus-life, or something like that. The reason they don't do that is because they are trying to win propaganda points. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make them hypocritical.

Well, They don't pretend is the point. The people in question openly express their support for the death penalty. Being a hypocrite means not having a virtue that you pretend to have; it doesn't mean not having a virtue that someone else thinks you should have.

Quote:

I see your point, but then you don't hear pro-choice saying things like "Choice is sacred", whereas a pro-lifer will say "Life is sacred".

I don't see people claim that choice is sacred but that's to be expected because they have a very different reason for venerating choice than others do for venerating life. I see Americans claim that they value "the pursuit of happiness" and not "the pursuit of happiness provided you do not..." which would be more accurate. They're not pretending that all avenues of happiness pursuit are open.

Quote:
It is well-known that in the phrase 'pro choice' that the choice is specifically in regards to 'a woman's choice to have an abortion'. This is what the pro choicers all say.

That may be known but there's still a subtle difference between that and their actual position. Pro-choice doesn't even mean that you can choose every abortion. Most people who claim to be pro-choice in this thread I imagine, perhaps even you, would say that a woman can't abort a healthy baby 8 months into the pregnancy just because it is her preference. Are they being hypocrites? I don't think so.

I assume they would say that if one makes a choice so reckless and harmful to another then they forfeit the benefit of their pro-choice position, ironically the exact thing a pro-life person says when someone murders a bunch of people and receives a death sentence.
 

Quote:
This is not so with the 'pro life' crowd, who will go out of their way to blur the lines and claim to be on the 'righteous' side of 'sacred life', without being clear that they are only really concerned with the life of the fetus to be born, and they don't care about it afterwards.

I concede that the people claim to be on the "righteous side of sacred life" and that's not really how I would characterize their position. With that said however, they obviously don't think that all life is sacred or that no one should ever be killed and they don't pretend that is what they think. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:natural

Gauche wrote:

natural wrote:

Yes. If their position is not actually pro-life, then they shouldn't pretend that it is. If it's more nuanced then that, then they should go with the nuance. Pro-fetus-life, or something like that. The reason they don't do that is because they are trying to win propaganda points. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make them hypocritical.

Well, They don't pretend is the point. The people in question openly express their support for the death penalty.

And they simultaneously proclaim that all life is sacred. That's the pretending and the hypocrisy. The fact that they say two contradictory things doesn't mean they're not hypocrites; in fact, that's pretty much *why* they are hypocrites.

Quote:
Being a hypocrite means not having a virtue that you pretend to have; it doesn't mean not having a virtue that someone else thinks you should have.

They pretend to have the virtue of holding all life sacred.

Quote:
Quote:

I see your point, but then you don't hear pro-choice saying things like "Choice is sacred", whereas a pro-lifer will say "Life is sacred".

I don't see people claim that choice is sacred but that's to be expected because they have a very different reason for venerating choice than others do for venerating life. I see Americans claim that they value "the pursuit of happiness" and not "the pursuit of happiness provided you do not..." which would be more accurate. They're not pretending that all avenues of happiness pursuit are open.

Way to completely dodge the issue, Gauche. Congratulations on that.

In any case, I'm not even defending the 'pro-choice' slogan, since that's not my justification for my position. You claimed/implied that *all* people who are pro-abortion and anti-death-penalty are equally hypocritical to pro-lifers. Your focusing on pro-choicers does nothing to help your case. There are many possible positions, such as mine, that don't involve sloganeering or hypocrisy. And yet, the pro-lifers are still hypocrites.

Quote:
I concede that the people claim to be on the "righteous side of sacred life" ... . With that said however, they obviously don't think that all life is sacred or that no one should ever be killed ...

Clearly. Which is what makes them hypocrites.

Quote:
...and they don't pretend that is what they think. 

Except that they do. When, as you yourself conceded, they "claim to be on the "righteous side of sacred life"".

You seem to think that their contradictory statements make their position *less* hypocritical. That is bizarre to me. To me, their contradictory statements highlight *just how* hypocritical they are.

Like when a Christian proclaims, "Love thy neighbour", but engage in hating their neighbours, and even admit to hating their neighbours. Or when they proclaim, "Turn the other cheek", but engage in "Eye for an eye", and even proclaim their desire for revenge and 'punishment'. Which is actually another example related to the death penalty. This doesn't make them less hypocritical, it just spells out their hypocrisy in gory detail.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
............

Great first question, Curious Child.

 

Some people ease in with a 'Fav Video' thread, so kudos for getting people chatting.

 

Abortion = Woman's choice

Death Penalty = 0 rate of recidivism

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Why is someone

Gauche wrote:

Why is someone a hypocrite when they are in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion but not a hypocrite when it's the other way around?

 

This is a very good point.

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I really think that unless a

I really think that unless a person has actually been in the situation of having an unexpected child they should STFU. I get really tired of people opinions on abortion, The Iraq war, etc. that have never been in the situation. Sorry this was written very quickly, I have class. 

 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Gauche

natural wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Well, They don't pretend is the point. The people in question openly express their support for the death penalty.

And they simultaneously proclaim that all life is sacred. That's the pretending and the hypocrisy. The fact that they say two contradictory things doesn't mean they're not hypocrites; in fact, that's pretty much *why* they are hypocrites.

 You started off saying that they claim life is sacred. That has now become "all life is sacred". I assume "all life is always sacred" will be next. I see where this is going.

Of course if you afford someone no right to a more complex position than you need them to have to level criticism at them then they'll be hypocrites and many other things according to you.

natural wrote:

Way to completely dodge the issue, Gauche. Congratulations on that.

In any case, I'm not even defending the 'pro-choice' slogan, since that's not my justification for my position. You claimed/implied that *all* people who are pro-abortion and anti-death-penalty are equally hypocritical to pro-lifers. Your focusing on pro-choicers does nothing to help your case. There are many possible positions, such as mine, that don't involve sloganeering or hypocrisy. And yet, the pro-lifers are still hypocrites.

There are many possible positions if you are pro-choice you mean. If you are pro-life there is one possible position apparently. Your position on this matter though is clear. When one venerates life they must always, and when they venerate choice they must sometimes. So of course you think they're hypocrites because you hold them to a standard that has nothing to do with their actual beliefs or the standard to which you hold yourself.

natural wrote:
Gauche wrote:
I concede that the people claim to be on the "righteous side of sacred life" ... . With that said however, they obviously don't think that all life is sacred or that no one should ever be killed ...

Clearly. Which is what makes them hypocrites.

In the mind of natural. Because in the mind of natural if one says "life is sacred" there may be no caveat, no modifying detail in interpreting that statement. Great, you're well on your way to winning all future arguments with anyone who is pro-life and owns a fly swatter.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Zombie Jesus
Zombie Jesus's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2010-01-18
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist

liberatedatheist wrote:

Zombie Jesus wrote:

Every human perceive the world differently because no two human beings have the same experiences, our minds and opinions are constructed based on our experiences so I do not believe my reasons are any more/less ridiculous than yours. Maybe you should ask them if they feel blessed to have their skin torn apart every time they ask for a piece of bread because going through that experience is every child's dream.

 

Alright yea their lives suck but a crappy life is still better than never having existed, and if you disagree with that it is still not your call to make. Also, even if some people would rather have not been born than live a crappy life as a child, it is inappropriate to use this as a reason to generalize abortion as being acceptable. There are some defendable reasons to be pro-choice, i just think this is one of the worst ones that exists.

It's your opinion against mine and I find it inappropriate to use "existing is better than eating shit all my life" as a reason to generalize abortion as being unacceptable.


 

All forms of tampering with human beings, getting at them, shaping them against their will to your own pattern, all thought control and conditioning is, therefore, a denial of that in men which makes them men and their values ultimate.
Isaiah Berlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, if you

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, if you want to allow government to be the criminal instead of risking your neighbor being the criminal and you don't mind being silenced as an atheist(because if you are an atheist living in Saudi Arabia, that would be risky) You'd give up your right to say "Allah is bullshit" via force of government just so you wouldn't have to worry about your neighbor robbing you?

It is much easier to go after your neighbor when they harm you, than it is to change a dictatorship that has absolute control over you.

I am not with you on that. I am not going to give up my freedom for security. I would rather fear my neighbor than my government.

I simply stating an ostensible fact, I DO NOT ENDORSE TORTURING CITIZENS IN LINE.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:There are lots

Brian37 wrote:

There are lots of things that can kill me and to worry about it all my life is absurd. I doubt either you or I as atheists would value living under a government that would feed us and protect us with the condition that we don't question it.

I don't know who this is addressed to, but I'll bite anyways...

 

Do you accept that your rights and governmental guarantees may be stripped COMPLETELY from you at any moment, for any particular reason? It happens through out history and quite often to so called "Democratic" governments and "Representitive" democracies. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it happened to America in the not-so-distant future, judging by the current state of world/domestic politics.

And since this is the politics forum... what, exactly, prevents an autocratic military coup from oppressing a nation's citizens at any one moment or another? (it's a trick question)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)