Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Badger of Basra
Jul 26, 2007

Venom Snake posted:

A person who is for a thing but understands it's limits or a person who is against a thing but understands when it might be nessecary is a much better way of going about thinking of people rather than using lazy short word labels. It's dumbing down of political discourse and reducing everything to black and white helps nobody.

The death penalty is bad, but is can be a necessary evil when it comes to removing awful extremely dangerous people like Pollard. Pollard did what he did 100% for money and he didn't give a single poo poo what happened to anyone who might get hurt by it.

So the next time Germany or Brazil finds someone spying on them for us, you'd be cool if they just killed that person?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Badger of Basra
Jul 26, 2007

OwlFancier posted:

Pro Life/Pro Choice.

Boiling complex arguments down to slogans to enhance your position is stupid. Everyone is pro life and pro choice. Every sound minded person is opposed to the use of the death penalty, but some people may believe it is productive in some instances, despite it being abhorrent.

Pithy names for things exist to try to homogenise the opposition. They're stupid and you should avoid using them.

If you believe the death penalty should be used under some circumstances, you are not opposed to the use of the death penalty.

Badger of Basra
Jul 26, 2007

OwlFancier posted:

I can be opposed to its use but more opposed to the alternative.

What is the alternative?

Badger of Basra
Jul 26, 2007

OwlFancier posted:

No, I think absolutism is silly. The idea that everyone can be reformed is manifestly untrue. We lack the capacity to reform everyone and in some cases the cost of doing so may outweigh the benefit. In the majority of cases reform is preferable and would arguably be pursued by the same methods that crime prevention would be: The improvement of conditions for those driven to crime by necessity, perceived or actual. Removing the incitement to crime would greatly reduce the prevalence of many crimes, and would be worth doing for the general sake of improving the lot of as many people as possible.

However, in the case of people who have no environmental incitement to crime, who simply commit crime against society for personal gain, because they lack a sense of social obligation despite having benefited greatly from society, there is far less you can practically do to prevent such a person from commiting crime. They have obviously decided that they are not bound by the same obligations the rest of us are, and in the case of Pollard, he apparently has not changed that view.

Such a person is completely antisocial, is a danger to those around them and cannot ethically be permitted access to society at large, so they must either be incarcerated indefinitely, or simply killed. Killing them would ideally be cheaper than incarcerating them and the money thus saved can be put to better use.

How do you propose we ascertain with 100% certainty that a) a person cannot be redeemed at any point in the rest of their life and b) that new evidence will not appear to exonerate a person sentenced to death?

If you find out, please contact the Governors of several US states.

Badger of Basra
Jul 26, 2007

Venom Snake posted:

Traitor has an extremely specific definition in the constitution. The United States has prosecuted spies but Pollard was prosecuted as a traitor.

Why does this absolutely merit the death penalty? Why is treason worse than murder, or jaywalking, or double parking? Why do you keep bolding it?

Badger of Basra
Jul 26, 2007

Venom Snake posted:

The worst serial killer can kill 60+ people. The worst traitor can kill millions. The reason why it's so bad is because it represents the selling out of not just the people directly around you but your entire society.

He didn't kill millions though.

Jack of Hearts posted:

Indeed, all value judgments are basically arbitrary, so why bother making them? The idea that murder is worse than jaywalking is wholly subjective. We ought to treat all crimes as misdemeanors.

How about "we ought to prevent the State from arbitrarily killing people, if we can."

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Badger of Basra
Jul 26, 2007

Venom Snake posted:

The Founding Fathers actually shared your view. To accuse someone of being a traitor is really really hard to do.

EDIT: And the dude came preeetty close considering a decent amount of the poo poo he shared ended up in the Soviet Union, if he hadn't been caught when he did...


:greenangel:

My god you're right, if he had been allowed to continue unmolested they might've done a Holodomor on us.

  • Locked thread