This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Capital Punishment
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
Pardon me.
As to your assertion that it is never right to kill someone due to basic human rights, I submit this to you.
I'm standing behind you with a gun to your head, with specific intent clearly stated that I will end your life. You have a weapon that I am not aware of and, in order to preserve your own life, you kill me.
Is that not just? Is the right to continue one's own life not part and parcel of basic human rights?
That's not murder, that's self defense.
Also, it's still not just in the fact that you have no right to take the other person's right to live either, it's just acceptable to a degree.
After all, there's the chance that I could have enough knowledge and precision to just hurt you rather than kill you. People kill others in self defense in anger and panic most of the time.
And in all ambiguity, what if I told you I had a bomb in your house and killed your parents before you pulled out that gun?
Alter the scenario somewhat. The victim-to-be is your spouse, your child, or your parent. Is it not just, is it not right, is it not proper to prevent their basic human rights from being violated with whatever power you may possess?
Self defense also applies to your family and belongings.
And if you can claim that it is still not just to violate another person's basic human rights, then how can they be "basic human rights" without being universally applied to you and yours as well?
Simple, he's beaching it, he's not a righteous person. Doesn't mean that you have to breach it.
That's like asking, would you rob someone who robbed you?
The right thing to do is report it to the police and have it restored it you in a orderly fashion.
Also, this is going off-track.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
Actually, no. It's not off-track. You claimed "basic human rights" at the beginning. Let me quote it again for you.
It is off-track, it no longer deals with Capital punishment itself, rather, a tangent of the justification people have associated with the process.
You did not say murder. You said kill, of which murder is a subset. And to kill in self-defense is still to kill.
So which is it: murder or kill? And to which would "basic human rights" come into play?
While it is true that I have said murder and kill as different tangents, I have not diverted from original proposition.
"Also, it's still not just in the fact that you have no right to take the other person's right to live either, it's just acceptable to a degree."
It's not right, or righteous, as was my original purpose and therefore unjust, however, it is acceptable.
If it is your "basic human rights" that are the concern, then morally it would be no different: you attempt to continue your existence, to continue your own basic human rights. In a just society, however, there is a specific sequence of justifiable reasons for the taking of human life, deemed significant as established by that society, of which "by reason of self-defense" is part and parcel of that sequence of reasons.
Morals are on a personal level, therefore "morally it would be not different" is not a proof of any sort, merely your opinion. And how does that even continue into the bomb in the house = you in danger when you clearly know the bomb is in the house (assuming you're not in the house)?
Again, we delved into discussing "just" so to use "just society" as a description is merely answering red is crimson and crimson is red.
"By that society" is also ambiguous as it doesn't refer to how many people are in the group, if a society of two people deem it "justifiable" to kill another person, it does not make it righteous in the society of ten people.
As I've already pointed out, most of the time you can stab the gunman's hands and leg and call the police instead of stabbing him in the heart, you're being as non-specific as a lawyer might be.
Finally, you're avoiding my other points, so let me ask you, would you rob the person who robbed you?
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
Is it ever
justifiable
to execute criminals?
Hence, the question is still on-track. Next point.
lol my
tie
, anyways, I said it led away from capital punishment, and it did. It's no longer associated with executions, but rather, the act of killing.
You are not executing a person in a self defense situation, you are killing the person, there is a clear difference.
So it can be acceptable? So it is no longer a "basic human right" if breaching it is "acceptable" in certain situations.
Sorry, I didn't want to type it out, I said acceptable to a degree at first.
To expand fully into that idea, my proposition is that if one of them had to lose their lives, the person responsible for endangering their lives should be the one who puts it on the line.
It is acceptable in the regard that if one person must die that it is more reasonable for it to be the perpetrator.
So strike the word "moral". By your reasoning, it would not be any different at all. If it is a basic human right to not be killed, then it is a basic human right to preserve your right to continue to live by any means necessary.
If disarming is possible, then by all means make the attempt if you feel the need. Yet remember two details. A) You have to get it right on the first attempt, therefore you must be faster than my reaction speed. B) The gun is against your head, therefore you must be faster than the bullet.
It really was easier if you combined those two points.
Regardless, point 1: yes, preserve it by any means necessary, yet, it is still not "righteous" to kill another person.
Point 2: stabbing a person has more chance of getting you shot than disarming them at blank range, muscle spasms at death will probably pull the trigger. But I'm not here to discuss the mechanics of the human body.
My point was that there are often cases of self defense killings where it was over the top.
A "just society" is a society that is under the rule of law.
Then use that definition instead, by all means.
Applicable definition
of society: a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
If you can name a society that falls under that definition with only two members, or even ten, feel free to cite it. If you're going to use a hypothetical scenario, at least make one that is realistic and applicable.
Under those definitions:
A family would be a society.
A school club would be a society.
ranging from 2+ people.
Also, the reason I chose the numbers two and ten were to show that they can be arbitrary and to show the difference in how the size and reference of the "society" makes a difference.
Also, family is applicable, refer to honor killings if you don't know what I mean.
To be specific, in American society, which is under the rule of law the last time I checked, it takes a minimum of 15 people to establish a death penalty: one judge, one defense attorney, one district attorney/prosecutor, and twelve members of a jury of their peers. Add in the defendant, witnesses, clerks, observers, bailiffs, and members of the media, as well as various members of the Courts of Appeals and Supreme Courts... Lots more than just ten people, or even two.
Define American, it's illegal in Michigan for example.
See above for the ten and two examples.
For that matter, a "society of two" would be the exact number of people with guns in my scenario. Ten people with guns would make it much harder to plead self-defense.
I think you missed my example. My point was not the actual killing, but the justification of it within a society.
Two people thinks it's right to kill someone, but they belong to a group of ten people, where the majority, seven, for example, disagrees.
Point being, "social norms" and "justifications" depends on the society you're associating the events to.
Apples and oranges. We're talking about killing, not robbery.
For one thing, you can survive being robbed.
Apples and oranges are both fruits, they both make delicious drinks. Stop avoiding the question and answer it and I'll show you what I'm getting at.
Post by
blademeld
Alright, I'm tired, if you want to continue, be my guest, but don't expect a reply for a while.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
-I was merely saying that whole "can't do it again" as an added plus.
-If it is more expensive, you are doing it wrong.
-I didn't really mean it as rethink, what I meant was that it would really make it not consider it very much; people like to live.
Just because someone hates another so much, it does not mean that he needs therapy.
Pluses actually have to be pluses, on the contrary, those people could develop the cure for cancer in prison for all you know.
It's more expensive because you have to make sure the person is guilty, so multiple retrials as well as investigations are needed. If it's cheaper, you're doing it wrong.
What?
If someone hates another person to the extent of murder, by social norms, yes you need therapy.
-Don't go there, everything we do can stop or allow someone to sure cancer, really.
-You have to make sure the person is guilty in even the most trivial or case, if you don't do that, again, you guys are doing it wrong.
-I meant that it would actually stop people from doing those crimes, as people value nothing more then their life.
Post by
blademeld
Stop avoiding the question and answer it and I'll show you what I'm getting at.
Why don't you just state it flat out and stop dilly-dallying around? You've already defeated your own logic multiple times over, so it can't be from fear of that...
Thank you for showing me the errors of my ways with complete proofs that are not completely based on your opinions. Thank you for staying coherent in your arguments and not using the "I'm right so you must be wrong" statements, and thank you for not using irony in your reply.
Oh wait.
By the way, you still haven't answered the question. Regardless of if all of my previous statements were correct or wrong, you've dodged a single question two or three times already. If you're so right, there's nothing to be afraid of, right?
Anyways, there are several mistakes in your reply that I wish to point out, but I was about to turn off my computer, so I'll refrain for the moment.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I love how nicely this topic caught on. I am learning lots.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
119742
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
276825
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
330069
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm going to bring this up to the top due to the recent DC sniper execution and the Ft Hood massacre guy.
Should we have it or should we not?
My stance is that captiol punishment should NOT exist, because the government doesn't have the right to end someone's life, which is an inaliable right.
Post by
343569
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I dont really like the idea of my taxes feeding the guy who raped my daughter, id rather pay for him to die.
Death penalty for rape?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.