For or Against Capital Punishment?
- Thread starter Delta
- Start date
-
- Tags
- capital punishment
Being for or against anything has no basis unless based on Truth and proper philosophical investigation.
First, you need to prove the theory of personal responsibility, and prove that society should punish anyone.
The Truth is that no individual can be legitimately held accountable for any act they may choose to undertake by the society that created them.
Society had no right or claim to punish any so-called criminal, who is in reality a tortured victim-creation of society.
So your idea here is "respond in kind". If someone does what you say is wrong and stupid, you think that everyone else should follow the example and also do what is wrong and stupid. Tell Me, if the criminal jumped of a cliff, would you suggest that those in society should also copy suit?
Further, you only call them criminals worthy of these punishments due to the actions they chose to undertake. Therefore, if you murder the criminal, then who ever does so must be also be worthy of being murdered.
Since society murders on a scale much greater than any individual criminal ever could, you must condemn society to be consistent.
Last edited:
Again we see a very basic mistake of reason. If the bad guys are mistaken for undertaking a murder, and you justify yourselves by what the criminal does, then surely you must also be mistaken.
This is making the bad criminals look small and innocent, which I believe is the most naive action any human could make. If you've killed somebody, society must be there to make sure you're never capable of repeating your action.
Don't bother, trust me. This guy thinks criminals should be sent to resorts, murderers should be hailed as heros, that parents have no rights and that nothing is wrong with pedophiles. Try pointing out how screwed up that is and he calls you a stupid human that is incapable of knowing the truth without offering any kind of actual argument.
Everyone should bother debating against people who views all others as wrong, and criminals as right. It's a debate that's never ending, but already actually won.
I am not suggesting criminals are small and innocent. Some may be. Lets take Superior Seer and Hero Carl Panzram. I don't think he fits the bill.
What exactly makes you think criminals are "bad"? Take Thomas Watt Hamilton.
Would you say his chosen and planned actions at a Dunblane primary school make him bad? The Forbidden Truth is that Victim Thomas was simply a reflection of all of you.
Its not an action, its a Forbidden Truth. Nor is it naive. I know full well the mindset of many criminals.
And what exactly makes society so great as to be on a pedastool, mounted on the endless stream of lies, myth, murders etc etc? NOTHING! Society is genocidally malevolent and insane.
The Forbidden Truth dictates that all criminals all have a personal True-Reality right to pursue any vengeance on society as they personally see fit.
At the same time, a Truth-based society would gain the Truth-based and legitimate right to take action against criminals, in order to protect the citizen-slaves. This would always have to be 100% benevolent, non-punitive and contain no moral judgments whatsoever of society's created victim.
Its not so simple as that.
Incorrect. Those who reject Truth never win, and Superiors ALWAYS win. It makes no difference if you believe it, it makes no difference if you realize it, it makes no difference if you choose to run away in terror of Forbidden Truth.
I always emerge the victor in the end.
For me looking at criminals as the human response to evil and cruelty is not so hard. If you manage to kill someone who is completely innocent, I would look upon you as a cold bastard who deserved to exact same treatment.
And what is your alternative? If we're not supposed to have laws elected by society, what then is our alternative? To let people just walk free? This is anarchism and can never really be put into life.
That makes no sense. What response? You will need to rephrase that.
1. Criminals have a Truth-based right to do as their True Reality dictates. If that involved murder(s), so be it.
2. Society murders humans on a scale no criminal could ever begin to dream of.
3. Innocent? Thats just a ridiculous application of the term. Even if so, it does not matter one iota if the target is "innocent".
I presume you mean "the exact same treatment". Already, just for revealing Forbidden Truths you desire Me dead. Real nice.
I don't need an alternative, because criminals acts already have Truth-based legitimacy.
If society is to have laws, they must be both Truth-based and applied evenly and un-selectively before they can have any claim to Truth-based legitimacy.
Now we see the false dilemma and an appeal to consequences. You cannot attempt to justify your position by attacking other options. Of course, thats a moot point, because your position can NEVER be justified by and legitimate Truth-based standard.
GOP - you need to address post #250 in detail and address the points.
What we humans are, some represent good and some represent bad. And I most definitely believe and the human answer to evil are criminals in a very large scale.
I interpret all these three points as: "Please, the criminals are innocent, start putting the blame on the cruel bastards who dare speak up about evil people killing innocent people." I find this directly naive and so dangerous. We must never excuse the criminals like you are, that is giving them even more right to do the horrifying things they are doing.
You can still not answer my question. What is your alternative? If you don't want laws in a society, so then what's your alternative?
In the US and in Europe this is already the case today. They are based on the truth. When someone murders another, there is no excuse, there is no oh society is at fault, its you who committed the crime, and then you should take the blame and responsibility for it.
Incorrect. This belief of your is utterly deranged and is a delusion. There is not a shred of evidence that exists that suggests that any criminal or other individual can be good or evil. There is not evidence that "evil" even exists.
You did not rephrase that. It still makes no sense. You just changed the word "response" to "answer". Also, what evidence do you have to support your belief? There is no Truth-based legitimacy to your idea that any other person should have to be held to your personal beliefs.
This is ultra-deranged, and does not even address a single point I made.
Directly? why is it naive and why is it dangerous? You make no sense. You dont even address what I said. For example (2) tells you that society meets your criteria you use to falsely judge criminals. That means that you must label society as you do criminals, just on a greater scale.
1. They already have a Truth-based right to do so.
2. They will not care if they have any right or not so it does not matter.
No, you cannot reason that way. You are making an false dilemma fallacy. I dont need to supply an alternative. I never even said that I dont want laws in a society. Its more a question of what the laws, policies, doctorines and institutions are.
Totally incorrect. The current laws of every society are lie-based, genocidally malevolent and insane. They are arbitrary and irrational fascist decrees.
Wrong. They are based on myths and lies.
They dont need an excuse. You just keep repeating yourself. Society is responsible. Thats just a fact. There is no reason to accept the theory of responsibility. Its just society's way of reversing the guilt and responsibility it bears.
One problem your position clearly has is that society murders more humans than any criminals ever has or could. You just ignore this fact in your replies.
I suggest you read the first four main pages of My website and see where I cam coming from first.
This is just naive. Believing that criminals are not evil is very insane, and giving them a free opportunity to just continue committing crime.
I don't need any evidence to show why what I am saying is right. What I can refer to is how free liberated countries today work and how they treat people who kill and torture innocent human lives. That is the best evidence.
To make what criminal action legitimate by saying it is not evil, is very dangerous because it just gives them the opportunity to continue on their evil-spree without anyone putting the finger on what they're doing as bad.
Are you just gonna continue stating this without anything to support your insane accusations?
Of course they murder people who are murderers. This is how you prevent criminals to continue what they're plan originally was.
It is not insane to reject a theory of yours that is based on zero evidence and ignorance of modern knowledge of human behaviour. There is simply no such thing as "evil", and even if there was, you would have to prove not only that criminals are "evil" and non-criminals "not evil", but also exactly how "evil" renders society the supposed right to punish and even murder criminals. This was asked of you, and you refuse to give an answer.
It IS insane to invent a mystical force called "evil", when there is no evidence for its existence, especially when modern psycho-analysis already has solved at least most of the major explanations for criminal behaviour.
Strawman. I never suggested anything of the sort.
--------------------------------
Seer TT : "You did not rephrase that. It still makes no sense. You just changed the word "response" to "answer". Also, what evidence do you have to support your belief? There is no Truth-based legitimacy to your idea that any other person should have to be held to your personal beliefs."
Yes you do. You made a positive claim regarding the existence of "evil", and so you are 100% required to prove your case. Of course, you simply cannot.
That is not evidence at all. We already know how society treats criminals. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. You did not answer, you claim some other authority can answer, then you don't supply that answer.
You just presume that the reason they treat criminals a certain way is because they believe they are "evil". They know better than that, they just pretend that. Even so, they can be wrong just as much as you can.
While you are at it, you STILL need to rephrase that original statement. Now, how about trying to answer the Q I put : "Also, what evidence do you have to support your belief? There is no Truth-based legitimacy to your idea that any other person should have to be held to your personal beliefs."
-----------------------------------------
No, it is rational, sane and sensible because there is not any legitimate evidence that "evil" exists and there is a mountain of Truth-based evidence and psycho-analysis that shows why criminals are not responsible and their actions are legitimate in their own True Reality.
1. Circular reasoning. You presume you are "evil" to try and show they are.
2. False Dilemma fallacy.
3. My position does not suggest in any way that criminals are given opportunities to continue crimes, and even so, you fail to supply a legitimate reason why they shouldn't be so allowed.
4. Appeal to consequences fallacy.
There is nothing insane about this Forbidden Truth. It's just a fact, proven by the rational and unbiased analysis of facts. I have a mountain of evidence that proves Me correct. Some of that is on My website.
-------
Seer TT : "One problem your position clearly has is that society murders more humans than any criminals ever has or could. You just ignore this fact in your replies."
Total and complete failure. "Of course" is not an explanation.
1. If society murders, then that is also murder.
2. It is hypocritical and deranged to murder if you condemn it.
3. You can prevent any criminal from doing murders without resorting to murder. Australia has no death-penalty. USA does, yet america has the highest murder rate of any country in the world.
4. There is no reason to believe that punishing criminals has ever lowered crime rates. Some of the times and places with the highest crime rates are those with the most severe punishments.
5. Society murders human beings who are not criminals, which you ignore. This is done via war, abortion, assassinations etc etc etc
You did not address My point in the answer : Society murders more humans than any criminals ever has or could. You just ignore this fact in your replies.
** There is obviously no point continuing this attempt at discussion. You are arguing irrationally. You dont even try and answer the points I raise, and instead repeat your "criminals are evil" mantra to everything I say.
Last edited:
I'd suggest you say the same thing to victims of criminal actions. Humans can be just as much evil and just as much good. There's no simple answer to it, as you claim it is.
I don't see you showing me the opposite, although you seem pretty obsessed of claiming the opposite.
I think it is insane to believe that people who shoot others are not evil.
Never said you did either. I just said it, because it's a consequence of your beliefs. When someone is told that what you are doing is not evil, the chances of the person continuing his or hers action would still be great. That even goes for murder.
You haven't proved any of the opposite, so why should I stand behind your demands when you show absolute no logic?
I speak for me, and you speak for you.
First of all, we're a free and liberal part of the world who KNOW better. We're not like old ancient parts of the world where there are no definitions of evil so go ahead do whatever you want. We are modernized human beings who know that murdering and torturing innocent human beings is an act of evil.
Why is it so important for you to excuse criminals?
Of course you do. You excuse their actions. You just did in a part of your post. You fail to realize how insane and utopic these beliefs are. You can't treat criminals like puppies and expect them to be "oh so good and nice". That's not the way the world works.
Then I'd love you to copy/paste some of it into the forum.
Society cannot be blamed for human actions. If someone decides to go off on a murder-spree, it's his own choice, and he should be punished thereafter. No excuses.
No if it's for the better good. If we are removing permanently a dangerous murderer, than that should be accepted instead of just watching several innocent lives lost because of sick people.
No, it's common sense.
Doesn't prove anything. And makes the argument for harder punishment even greater.
And sometimes it's not. Your point being?
I haven't ignored any of the kind. I've only told you some flat out facts about criminals having to stand up for their own actions, instead of people helping them out by justifying their actions, like I interpret you having done through your posts.
Why even bother?
1. There is no opposite of your claim.
2. It is up to you to prove your claims.
3. Total lack of proof of both your claims and what you call "the opposite" of your claims simply means your claim is still unproven.
---
I refuse to continue. There is no point. You are obviously incapable or unwilling to address the points I made and provide any substance to back your claims.
That does nothing but refuse to answer and defer the question to others.
You have not shown that good or evil even exists yet. And it is your answer that is simple.
No. You would need to prove your claims of "evil" and also why that supposedly makes society just in murdering criminals.
1. There is no opposite of your claim.
2. It is up to you to prove your claims.
3. Total lack of proof of both your claims and what you call "the opposite" of your claims simply means your claim is still unproven.
You said that already.
---
I refuse to continue. There is no point. You are obviously incapable or unwilling to address the points I made and provide any substance to back your claims.
Another obvious flaw in the legal murder arguments is that society itself can only commit the murders via a societal agent. No individual may murder in the exact same case/scenario of murder.
Take this example :
A. Ted Bundy to be murdered under the smokescreen of a "death penalty". Agent acting on behalf of society carries out orders and murders Ted Bundy.
B. As per A, but a prison officer sneaks into the chamber when he was not officially supposed to do so. He murders Ted Bundy in the death chamber.
In A, we have a societally-sponsered murder. That is deemed "lawful" and this not a murder by society.
In B, we have a "crime" committed. It is deemed a "murder" by society. But the actions are exactly the same. Yet, its a crime of murder. In B, the exact same thing happened.
The only selector society used was the word "unlawful", which is not related to any attribute, property or intent of the murders and the individual who carried out the murder. Yet "unlawful" is just an arbitrary dictate or judgment.
It was only declared a murder because it was not done with the permission and sponsership of society/authority.
This is a ridiculous assertion. It is illogical and impossible. Its a masked man fallacy to compare any 2 things and conclude that they are the same or different based on non-objective properties such as the views or attitudes of a third party. Most certainly based on permission.
Take this example :
A. Ted Bundy to be murdered under the smokescreen of a "death penalty". Agent acting on behalf of society carries out orders and murders Ted Bundy.
B. As per A, but a prison officer sneaks into the chamber when he was not officially supposed to do so. He murders Ted Bundy in the death chamber.
In A, we have a societally-sponsered murder. That is deemed "lawful" and this not a murder by society.
In B, we have a "crime" committed. It is deemed a "murder" by society. But the actions are exactly the same. Yet, its a crime of murder. In B, the exact same thing happened.
The only selector society used was the word "unlawful", which is not related to any attribute, property or intent of the murders and the individual who carried out the murder. Yet "unlawful" is just an arbitrary dictate or judgment.
It was only declared a murder because it was not done with the permission and sponsership of society/authority.
This is a ridiculous assertion. It is illogical and impossible. Its a masked man fallacy to compare any 2 things and conclude that they are the same or different based on non-objective properties such as the views or attitudes of a third party. Most certainly based on permission.
Last edited:
Similar threads
