Doesn't need to be a contradiction if it's for a better and safer society.
This argument is simply ultra-deranged. Here is why :
1. Contradictions are not solvable based on need.
2. Contradictions are not solvable because you think it's better for society.
3. You cannot show that the death penalty is better for society
4. You dont explain what "better" is
5. You cannot show that the "betterment" society should important, you just inherently presume society is automatically right no matter what.
6. Circular reason.
Murder isn't wrong as long as it keeps society safe.
This is utterly insane. The Forbidden Truth is that society is utterly and genocidally deranged, violent and malevolent. The notion that murdering a victim-creation of said society is about the safety of human being is ridiculous. It murders a human being.
What we see here is an attempt to duck the hypocrisy by making an arbitrary and capricious grouping of humans. Simply label all illegal murderers "criminals" and all other human beings and murderers "citizens". However, these catagories cannot change the objective reality of what murder entails.
1. What makes murder wrong, then?
2. You dont prove that society is made safe by the death penalty.
3. You cannot show why you think keeping society safe makes murder right.
4. society is not a human being, so it cannot have a lack of safety itself.
If murder is wrong, it cannot be selective. That is just how reason works. You have no reason to suggest murder is any different in principal in any cae you suggest. I am sure that this is lost on you, though.
And I strongly disagree with a lot of the laws also here in this country. We're simply too naive and liberal.
That was not the point. The point was that england has less of a murder problem than USA, that has capital punishment. You always duck the issue.
Also, if you can just "disagree" with certain laws, then its so can anyone else just "disagree". It does not help you.
Criminals create criminals
But if criminals are created by society, then both of these are created by society, because you suggest the creator can be itself!
Seer TT : "There is no evidence to support that the death penalty prevents murders - in fact it commits further murders." - You did not answer to the point again.
So you cannot exclude society as the creator of criminals.
Seer TT : We see brutal murderers like Hitler right now - societal leaders like Obama, Bush, and the various countries currently engaged in the insane war ritual.
This is an insane accusation.
It is not insane. You just will not answer because you don't know how. You're sunk. The Q was society commits murder all the time against all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. If criminals are bad because of the murders they undertake, then to stay consistant and rational you must condemn society for all the faults you claim are in the criminal murderer. Society does the murders on a greater scale.
And this is a large inconsistency. If we no criminal can be punished by society, the innocent civilians in society will be the victims.
Its no inconsistency because punishment does not stop criminals, crime can be dealt with in other ways, and the current system you support is full of targets of crime. It's your inconsistency.
Yes, we should start with preventing crime in society, but that goes of course right into the individuals responsibility.
That begs the original question I posed, though. You are just back to square one. Look at the exchange (for once) :
Seer TT : "The death penalty is simply a societally-sponsored form of murder.
Clearly, the act involved is murder.
There can never be any legitimate justification for society to murder any one of its tortured victim-creations. Reason cannot be selective. Society cannot murder in one way and then condemn it in others. If life is to have reference, then all life must be worthy of being saved.
It is no wonder that so many criminals develop a total disregard for life, because society itself has no regard for life. The criminal's welfare as a child was not considered an important issue, either.
The criminal is simply accurately reflecting what his society taught him.
The Truth is that if a criminal murder is "bad", then society must be millions of times as "bad" as the criminal it created because society commits more murders than any criminal ever possibly could."
GOP Replies : Of course, and then we need to start with society. [long rant about individual responsibility].
Incorrect. You agreed that "we should start with society", but then you went straight back and put it back on the individual.
You have not answered to the point expressed in post # 275.
No difficulties to believe society, you, me and everyone else are a part of society.
If we're not going to trust society, what are going to trust?
We can trust Truth, logic, reason, facts and use of the brain. But NOT society.
See, this in no way solves your problem.
The argument goes like this :
1. You say that murderers are untrustworthy, "bad", "wrong", shifty, immoral or what-have-you and should not murder people.
2. Society murders more people than any individual ever has or ever could.
3. The idea here is that whatever you say about the criminal has to transfer over to society itself, only society has done many more murders.
You claim you have you no difficulties in believing society, yet it is a greater murderer than any criminal you renounce! Your belief is ill-placed and irrational.
You clearly just want the outcome to be a certain way, a way that runs from the Forbidden Truth, a way that allows you to cower as a broken citizen-slave.
