Discussion: Death penalty

[Norsefire]

I don't wish to lower myself to their level.

You're not; you have to take into account circumstance. You're no more lowering yourself to their level by executing them than you would be lowering yourself to the level of a kidnapper by arresting them.

They are the ones that broke the law, and we are the ones giving them their due. We are responding, not aggressing.

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

There are many human endeavers in which mistakes lead to death. The practice of medicine, surgery, building bridges or large buildings, space exploration. mountain climbing, auto racing, driving to work, crossing the street. Do we cease all these activities because they might lead to the death of an innocent?

Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.

Justice calls for punishment proportional to the crime commited. For the crime of murder, no punishment is adequate short of death.

Why isn't life imprisonment adequate?


Syzygys:

What was the point of the next to last post in the Debate? You didn't say anything new but repeated the already refuted old arguments. Honestly, I didn't even read the whole thing....

The point was to post some of the stuff you didn't bother addressing from the Amnesty site. And it's not particularly for your benefit so I don't care whether you read it or not.


Max:

Well, I agree, but how does one vote on it?? I didn't see anything anywhere that would be a vote or whatever. Or is it just a bunch of words for us to read, but not do anythng about?

It's just a bunch of words. Since you pretend to be incapable of seeing the value of words, you will have to also pretend not to understand why somebody might wish to engage in such a debate. Yet the very fact that you post on sciforums so much gives your game away.


quadraphonics:

I'm frankly disappointed in James for agreeing to debate you.

I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that. If you believe I agreed to this debate for Syzygys's benefit, you ought to think deeper.

It's a low tactic to debate an opponent that you know to be grossly ineffectual at reasoning or argumentation...

On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty. It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.

And the level of cheap rhetoric that James produced in the subsequent "debate" suggests that he was only too happy for a punching bag to knock around.

Meh. The usual criticism from somebody who sits on the sidelines and does not engage.

 

[Syzygys]

Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.

You should have read the debate, commenter. :bugeye:

 

[Baron Max]

The point was to post some of the stuff you didn't bother addressing from the Amnesty site. And it's not particularly for your benefit so I don't care whether you read it or not.


It's just a bunch of words. Since you pretend to be incapable of seeing the value of words, you will have to also pretend not to understand why somebody might wish to engage in such a debate. Yet the very fact that you post on sciforums so much gives your game away.



I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that. If you believe I agreed to this debate for Syzygys's benefit, you ought to think deeper.



On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty. It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.



Meh. The usual criticism from somebody who sits on the sidelines and does not engage.

Hey, James, take a look at what you wrote ...read it again in "the light of day". Now tell me, honestly, why are you being so mean and nasty and condescending and elitist and egotistical and.....well, that kind of way?

Is your reign at Sciforums turning you mean and nasty? I can remember when you were pretty much a nice guy (for a freakin' liberal!). But what happened to you?

Baron Max

 

[Syzygys]

Your showing in the debate was very poor.

...and here are the EXAMPLES you provided to back up that opinion:

 

[Syzygys]

How come you chastise James for debating me, then you lower yourself and do the same?

No, the "economic consideration" here is not which system is cheaper, but which one is just.

I am sorry, but let's not mix the 2 things up. Economic consideration is one thing, justical one is another. Now you seem to be making a leap of faith argument that if the justice system were really just in China it would cost more, thus making the economic argument valid there too.

Unfortunatelly it is just an ASSUMPTION on your behalf and you can not prove that a cheap (cheaper than life in prison) justice system can not be also just.

Also, answer it: Why should we consider economic reasons in justice? (and if we are truly frugal I am ready to open the prison doors and let them all out.) If a country wastes money on pretty much everything justice shouldn't be the one where we start to safe money.

 

[James R]

Max:

Hey, James, take a look at what you wrote ...read it again in "the light of day". Now tell me, honestly, why are you being so mean and nasty and condescending and elitist and egotistical and.....well, that kind of way?

Well, gee Max, I don't know. Let's see.

Syzygys accused me of not saying anything new in my second-last post, and also had the ill manners to claim he didn't even bother reading it.

You tried to dismiss the debate as "just a bunch of words", as well as claiming that Syzygys had "won" just because you don't like me.

quadraphonics wrote that I was wrong to participate in this debate at all, also adding an accusation of "low tactics" in debating Syzygys and another one of "cheap rhetoric". All personal snipes with no content, because quadraphonics and I have had words in the past and he doesn't like me either. And for good measure, he had worse personal attacks on Syzygys.

I suggest that if you want to look for "mean and nasty", try quadraphonics, based on his performance here. If you want "condescending and elitist", try quadraphonics again. And if you want egotistical, try Syzygys, yourself or quadraphonics - it really doesn't make much difference.

 

[Baron Max]

Max: "Hey, James, take a look at what you wrote ...read it again in "the light of day". Now tell me, honestly, why are you being so mean and nasty and condescending and elitist and egotistical and.....well, that kind of way?"

***

Well, gee Max, I don't know. Let's see.

Syzygys accused me of not saying anything new in my second-last post, and also had the ill manners to claim he didn't even bother reading it.

You tried to dismiss the debate as "just a bunch of words", as well as claiming that Syzygys had "won" just because you don't like me.

quadraphonics wrote that I was wrong to participate in this debate at all, also adding an accusation of "low tactics" in debating Syzygys and another one of "cheap rhetoric". All personal snipes with no content, because quadraphonics and I have had words in the past and he doesn't like me either. And for good measure, he had worse personal attacks on Syzygys.

I suggest that if you want to look for "mean and nasty", try quadraphonics, based on his performance here. If you want "condescending and elitist", try quadraphonics again. And if you want egotistical, try Syzygys, yourself or quadraphonics - it really doesn't make much difference.

So what's all that mean, James? That morality is ...following along with whatever others do? That there's no "right or wrong", just copy-cat actions? "If Joe Bumfuck does it, then, by god, I'm gonna' do it, too!"

And, James, with you lashing out emotionally at everyone, can you now see why and how the Ugandans feel about the gays? They dislike gays just like you dislike those you've noted above. See? Logic and reasoning just don't seem to cut it, does it, James? Easy to understand when you put it into the right perspective, huh?

Oh, and as to the debate and my comment about "just words" is that, like the Ugandan discussion, you've invoked human emotions, then tried to hide the fact by claiming to appeal to logic and reason. Emotions can't be basis for a debate ....and it seems to me that that's exactly what you did.

Baron Max

 

[Syzygys]

Syzygys accused me of not saying anything new in my second-last post, and also had the ill manners to claim he didn't even bother reading it.

As a challenge I can go through it line by line and quote the same stuff from earlier posts, do you want me to do it? But as a pay off, you would acknowledge that you lost.

The reason I didn't read your next to last post because after reading the first few sentences I realized that we are in Repetition Land and you closed the debate anyway, so unless I continue to respond to it here (again, repetition) there was nothing to be gained by reading it except rising my blood pressure.

And hey, at least I was honest about it....

Now one more thing about debates. One is supposed to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point or I guess the lack of response can be considered as such. I DID acknowledge the sadist argument as the only good one although I still had a good response to it. On the other hand you haven't acknowledged any of my arguments as good ones although you did miss a few and didn't respond to them so I guess I must have made some good points.

I am kind of losing interest in this topic and I don't see much improvement in this thread either, so it is time to move on noting that the issue of DP is like a religion or politics for people, once they took a stand on one side they are unwilling to change their views no matter what...

 

[James R]

Max:

So what's all that mean, James? That morality is ...following along with whatever others do? That there's no "right or wrong", just copy-cat actions? "If Joe Bumfuck does it, then, by god, I'm gonna' do it, too!"

More trolling from you. Nothing worthy of a response. You're a waste of my time.

 

[Baron Max]

More trolling from you. Nothing worthy of a response. You're a waste of my time.

And yet it was important enough for you to make sure that others could see your "response" ....which means that it WAS NOT a waste of your time.

And now that you've admitted that morality is a human construct, very little of what you've been saying, here as well as other topics and threads, is meaningless. The UN declaration of human rights is meaningless if morality is a human construct. It's all just a lie! ...as I've been saying for years. And oddly, James, you've been arguing with me about that very subject for years. Yet now .....even you agree that morality is whatever humans want it to be ...human constucts.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

And yet it was important enough for you to make sure that others could see your "response" ....which means that it WAS NOT a waste of your time.

More trolling from you.

And now that you've admitted that morality is a human construct, very little of what you've been saying, here as well as other topics and threads, is meaningless.

Correct. Very little of what I've said is meaningless. None of it, in fact.

The UN declaration of human rights is meaningless if morality is a human construct.

What makes you think that?

 

[Ophiolite]

They are the ones that broke the law, and we are the ones giving them their due. We are responding, not aggressing.

I believe - with some justification - that it is better to be proactive than reactive.

 

[quadraphonics]

Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.

It has the benefit of providing justice for capital crimes.

Why isn't life imprisonment adequate?

Because it doesn't fit the crime. Murdering someone is not the same thing as imprisoning them for life.

I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that.

And yet you feel the need to respond to my thoughts on that topic. Odd.

If you believe I agreed to this debate for Syzygys's benefit, you ought to think deeper.

Why would I think that? I was pretty clear that I believe you agreed to this debate (or, specifically, this opponent) for the benefit of your own ego.

What I'd like to see motivate you is the quality of discourse at SciForums. The maintenance of such is one of the responsibilities that comes with your station, after all.

On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty.

? I don't see where 50% of the American people have weighed in about why (or whether) they support the death penalty, here. Sounds like the usual conspiratorial ideation that we see in so many of the pathological posters here.

It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.

What "out there?" You honestly account the contents of formal debate threads at SciForums as some kind of public outreach? Nothing you do or say here will have any discernable impact on what Americans in general think, or why.

Meh. The usual criticism from somebody who sits on the sidelines and does not engage.

? I'm here now, in the designated thread for discussing the debate in question (which had participation limited to you and szygys, no?), telling you what I think. Where am I avoiding engagement?

It's really very childish to respond with cheap insults. You'd be better off not responding at all, than confirming my allegations of egomania in such a pigheaded fasion. If nothing else, it's a liability for a moderator to be so easily provoked and derailed.

 

[James R]

Ah quadraphonics. You're at it again. Ho hum.

Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.

It has the benefit of providing justice for capital crimes.

What do you mean by "justice", specifically? Retribution? Compensation? What? Be specific. (Also note that I addressed this in the Debate.)

Why isn't life imprisonment adequate?

Because it doesn't fit the crime. Murdering someone is not the same thing as imprisoning them for life.

Answering murder with murder is barbaric.

I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that.

And yet you feel the need to respond to my thoughts on that topic. Odd.

Well, have a bit of a think about it. Maybe it will come to you.

I was pretty clear that I believe you agreed to this debate (or, specifically, this opponent) for the benefit of your own ego.

Thanks for your unrequested psycholanalysis, quadraphonics. It's always a pleasure to hear from an expert like yourself.

What I'd like to see motivate you is the quality of discourse at SciForums.

Should I take you as my model of "quality discourse"? How much quality have you contributed lately? Remind me.

I don't see where 50% of the American people have weighed in about why (or whether) they support the death penalty, here.

Don't be disingenuous now. I referred to surveys in the Debate. Go and read it. You might learn something.

Sounds like the usual conspiratorial ideation that we see in so many of the pathological posters here.

Are you a psychiatrist?

It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.

What "out there?" You honestly account the contents of formal debate threads at SciForums as some kind of public outreach? Nothing you do or say here will have any discernable impact on what Americans in general think, or why.

More expert opinion from you. Do you think it is possible to sway anybody's opinion, ever? Or maybe you think you could do it, but I couldn't possibly do it. Is that it?

You know what I think? I think you've developed a petty dislike for me, so you run around after me like a puppy yapping at my heels.

When I see you engaging in a Formal Debate, or otherwise posting something useful here, then perhaps I'll start to take you seriously. If you want to think of yourself as some kind of role model, you need to get some runs on the board.

I'm here now, in the designated thread for discussing the debate in question (which had participation limited to you and szygys, no?), telling you what I think. Where am I avoiding engagement?

You came in here merely to snipe. As usual. Toddle off and bug somebody else.

 

[Syzygys]

Answering murder with murder is barbaric.

Just curious why? I call these arguments the BIG words arguments, they don't really say anything but have some type of emotional meaning for the reader. Logically they are meaningless, unless we agree that barbaric is BAD. (and why shouldn't a barbaric crime be repaid in the same fashion?)

I say answering murder with food and board is stupid.

By the way we never really established why non-murderous crimes can not be punished by death? Surely, blinding or burning let's say a dozen people is worth as much as 1 death....

 

[James R]

Syzygys:

I have posted arguments for why crimes shouldn't be punished by death in the Debate.

 

[Syzygys]

Apparently, I was still left thirsty for answers, thus your answers probably were not good. (Like the question that you expect or not adequate pay for decent work)
Anyhow, I guess we should lock this thread because it is getting nowhere....

 

[quadraphonics]

What do you mean by "justice", specifically? Retribution? Compensation? What? Be specific.

It would be retribution in this case, obviously.

Answering murder with murder is barbaric.

Capital punishment isn't murder, and cheap rhetoric about "barbarism" is just that.

Should I take you as my model of "quality discourse"?

Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take my input seriously.

Which, I suppose, you do. Why else would you respond in such evasive, combative, personal terms?

Don't be disingenuous now. I referred to surveys in the Debate. Go and read it. You might learn something.

Unless I've missed something, there was nothing posted that went to the question of why Americans who support the death penalty do so. The only survey I saw posted discussed what percentage of Americans support the death penalty, and also broke this down by religious affiliation, race, political affiliation, etc. The question of reasons for support was not addressed.

Do you think it is possible to sway anybody's opinion, ever?

Sure. But swaying an individual's opinion (or even, every individual on SciForums) is a very different thing than impacting American thinking and perceptions in general. There's a worrying self-aggrandizement visible in the premise that you pursue debates here to rectify American wrong-headedness.

You know what I think? I think you've developed a petty dislike for me, so you run around after me like a puppy yapping at my heels.

My dislike of you is principled. Your faults have a serious, direct impact on the quality of discourse here, to say nothing of the manifold instances of your disrespect towards me personally.

The pettiness is on your side. After all, you could easily have simply ignored me, or responded in serious, adult terms. Instead we get a mess of cheap shots and raging insecurity.

If you want to think of yourself as some kind of role model, you need to get some runs on the board.

I don't need to think of myself as a role model to see how badly you're screwing up your duties as a mod. I only need to know what an effective mod looks like, and what an ineffective one looks like.

You really need to get your hypersensitive ego in check; it won't do for a mod to be reduced to spasms of cheap, personal invective every time he's criticized. In the first place, it sets a bad example. In the second, it's a liability: it makes it an easy matter for any motivated partisan to derail you.

You came in here merely to snipe.

If you don't like armchair quarterbacking, don't create a thread whose express purpose is criticism of your debate thread. Or, anyway, don't read it. Or, at least, don't complain about it.

 

[James R]

quadraphonics:

What do you mean by "justice", specifically? Retribution? Compensation? What? Be specific.

It would be retribution in this case, obviously.

There's more to justice than retribution, as I noted in the Debate.

Capital punishment isn't murder, and cheap rhetoric about "barbarism" is just that.

My use of the term "murder" was the cheap rhetoric there, not the "barbarism" bit.

Unless I've missed something, there was nothing posted that went to the question of why Americans who support the death penalty do so. The only survey I saw posted discussed what percentage of Americans support the death penalty, and also broke this down by religious affiliation, race, political affiliation, etc. The question of reasons for support was not addressed.

No debate of this type can hope to be comprehensive.

The answer to your question is simple, however. Americans support the death penalty because they believe it is an effective method of combating crime. In other words, they believe that it has deterrent value. They believe that it provides "justice" (like you say). In short, they believe many of Syzygys's "arguments". Why do they believe these things? Because they are uninformed. (There are other reasons, too.)

Sure. But swaying an individual's opinion (or even, every individual on SciForums) is a very different thing than impacting American thinking and perceptions in general. There's a worrying self-aggrandizement visible in the premise that you pursue debates here to rectify American wrong-headedness.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. I never talked about making a national impact on the United States or anything like that. It seems you're imagining my self-aggrandizement.

My dislike of you is principled.

Yeah. I can tell.

You know what I think? I think your ego can't stand occupying the same room with somebody who doesn't automatically defer to your presumed superiority.

I don't need to think of myself as a role model to see how badly you're screwing up your duties as a mod. I only need to know what an effective mod looks like, and what an ineffective one looks like.

You're a real expert on everything, aren't you?

You really need to get your hypersensitive ego in check; it won't do for a mod to be reduced to spasms of cheap, personal invective every time he's criticized. In the first place, it sets a bad example.

You're projecting again.

If you don't like armchair quarterbacking, don't create a thread whose express purpose is criticism of your debate thread. Or, anyway, don't read it. Or, at least, don't complain about it.

I suggest you read the sticky threads at the top of the Formal Debates forum. There, I have helpfully explained how this subforum works.