|
hakimashou posted:Kant was hugely in favor of the death penalty for murderers though... To Kant, executing them was a duty we had to them. Hey I'd love to stay and talk about this but I can't because Brock Turner has a real pretty mouth and I've just learned about this great ethical system that says anyone who rapes desires to be raped and it's a service, nay, an obligation to Brock that we rape his tight swimmer's rear end all day every day. And this ethical system appears to have no room for regret or repentance or rehabilitation so if I don't get it while the gettins good, he's going to be pretty used up from all the morally justified/obligatory assrape coming his way. E:also I'm going to pull a con on everyone who has ever lied about anything, in other words everyone, because hey free money. So I've got a real busy day ahead, sorry I can't do the debate thing.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
If you drive drunk the cop knocks back a few shots while you get back in your car and then he chases you down the highway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
The number of people who believe in corrective rape is obviously much smaller than the number who agree with retributive justice arguments for the death penalty. Following that chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion and arriving at corrective rape will conceivably get at least some number of them to reconsider the assumptions that lead us to that abhorrent conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
The people who don't agree with haki's defense of the death penalty are irrelevant because they already don't agree with him. The argument obviously is only relevant to people who agree with him. As for the risk that I will convince some people to be okay with retributive rape: some people already do and arguments for this exist already. The number of hypothetical people who like the death penalty and are so close to saying "hell yeah" to retributive rape that one post from me will tip them over the edge, but who have somehow never and will never encounter a pro-rape-jail argument anywhere else is probably exactly zero because that is an absurd set of circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I really dont know, never thought about it. Because there's no conceivable benefit that would justify doing something like that even to a bad person. E: killing a murderer has at least one benefit, you can be 100% sure he'll never reoffend. Raping a rapist doesn't even guarantee that. What benefit do you think there would be, aside from your personal psychological benefit from doubling down on an absurd consequence of your ethical theory rather than reconsidering your assumptions. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
The logical conclusion of what you're saying then is we should never examine the negative implications of anything for fear that someone might decide they like them. This does not seem reasonable or prudent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I don't know if that's my logic unless you just read that one post. This logic doesn't explain why you're suddenly limiting it to murder. Why is a rapist not choosing to be raped (forever?) when he chooses to rape someone? You've said that doing X to someone means you want X done to you, so why not punish rapists with a lifetime of state administered morally obligatory raping by eager volunteers?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, I'm saying you need to actually explain why what you are examining is a negative implication. "Your philosophy suggests the state could morally rape rapists" is just a true fact, it's not an argument. You're hoping that emotion is going to override reason, and instead of doubling down on a consistent position they will randomly hop to a new position, but you haven't done any work to show why a moral system where the state can rape rapists is bad, or where the right place to jump is, assuming you succeed. People aren't logical-consistency machines. A lot of the time we absorb values from our culture like "executions are good" or "intentional cruelty is bad" and grab at rationalizations to support them. We might have thought a particular one through until we apply them consistently everywhere or, like hakimashou, "never really thought about it." If I probe at these rationalizations where they conflict with someone's other values, yeah a person might double down and go full eye-for-an-eye the state should be tortured and raping and maiming. Or he might resolve the conflict some other way, for example with special pleading as hakimashou is doing now. And now I can say that "doing X to someone forfeits your right not to have X done to you" cannot the justification for the death penalty because there's no clear reason why it doesn't apply to other crimes. twodot posted:Presupposing consequentialism seems rude. I agree consequentialism is great, but a lot of people don't. Almost everyone is consequentialist to some degree; very few of us are willing to go all the way with Kant and agree that lying to the SS when they ask if there are any Jews in your house is the wrong thing to do. For those few who do I can't objectively prove they're wrong (ditto solipsists, or nihilists, etc) but it may help bystanders who haven't thought a particular anti-consequentialist argument all the way through to reject some of its more facially agreeable conclusions like "the death penalty is good", even if my debate opponent does go full-on "turn over those Jews, you don't want to be a liar." VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:You missed it. hakimashou posted:The very easy solution to the problem is "don't what to get executed? don't commit murder." Well this could be used to justify any punishment no matter how cruel or excessive. I've seen right-wingers use it to justify executing people for blocking traffic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Even supposing for the moment that that's true, and we have no reason to think it is: how would you ever be able to reliably tell the difference between those two types of people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:In a very real sense, the idea of security is an illusion - they're is no point in your life where you are ever safe. But certain contexts make you feel safer than others. Okay but the death penalty doesn't have any greater deterrent effect on capital crimes than life in prison does, we know that empirically. Life in prison is a pretty fuckin meaningful punishment, so this can't be the reason we need the death penalty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Hell 60% of Alabama thinks schools should be segregated by race. I think that says something, let's not be so hasty about dismissing something so popular.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Life Murderers are angels of mercy QED VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
I am pretty sure you can be unhappy with a situation while ultimately conceding it is necessary twodot. I think it "sucks" that OJ went free despite being obviously guilty, but I don't think we should start passing bills of attainder even though we could use those bills to make this specific situation not suck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:I missed the counterargument. You said "Nothing can be done for those who are executed", but I don't see any explanation for how "giving money to their family" isn't a thing that can be done for those who are executed. I'm sorry, could you explain how "giving money to still-alive people who are not me" helps me, if I am wrongfully executed? That helps my family, which is good, but it doesn't help me, I am still dead and money doesn't help that. I certainly wouldn't consider it just compensation for being wrongfully imprisoned if you gave money to my parents and did nothing for me. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:And I certainly wouldn't consider it just compensation for being wrongfully imprisoned if you released me and gave me money. So either compensation for wrongful punishment can't ever exist, or we have to accept that subjective standards for what just compensation constitutes are irrelevant. Maybe subjectively you wouldn't consider it sufficient compensation for being imprisoned, but objectively you did receive compensation. The same isn't true if you're killed, paying money to your family (if you have one) isn't compensating you, it's compensating someone else. So these situations aren't equivalent and we can't claim that "well we would pay you if you were imprisoned, therefore we'll just pay someone else if you're executed wrongfully" are equivalent remedies. "Someone who is dead can't be compensated at all" is a serious problem that can't be handwaved away so easily.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, they were objectively compensated, you just think they were compensated in a way that isn't useful to them. No they were objectively not compensated. If "compensation" isn't useful to the victim then it's not compensation now is it. If compensation doesn't have to be useful then shoot we don't need lawsuits anymore, we can just compensate people with happy thoughts, not too useful but who cares.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:Of course it doesn't help them, but it's doing a thing for them. If I do a thing for someone, that person is in no way guaranteed to be helped, or even affected at all. No. It isn't. You cannot do anything for dead people. Because they are dead. It is impossible. That's what "dead" means. Rather than picking such a stupid hill to die on, just acknowledge the truth that you can't "do a thing" for the dead and make the argument that this is unimportant because some other benefits of execution like prevention/deterrence/revenge/communal sense of justice/your boner/whatever outweigh the inability to compensate some percentage of the executed who turn out to be innocent. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:How the gently caress is getting paid to kill people morally acceptable anyhow? Right? Why are we paying for it at all? Think of how much money we could make if we auctioned off the opportunity to perform an execution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
If it were only them sure. But I doubt most people would choose to be immune to traffic tickets if it meant everyone else would get that option as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Whoa you can't do that, then more people will choose to be poor so they can break the law with impunity. The punishment for being poor must be swift and brutal, to incentivize people into choosing not to be poor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
The death penalty is good because money is a much stronger predictor of who will executed than whatever actual crime the person did. In this way our society deters poverty, a noble humanitarian goal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
The idea that locking someone in a cage for their rest of their life has absolutely zero restraining effect on their ability to commit future crimes is absurd. I'm not sure what utility any conclusion starting from such an absurd premise could possibly have.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 04:44
|
|