For or Against Capital Punishment?
- Thread starter Delta
- Start date
-
- Tags
- capital punishment
How can it be the same activity? Now as I see it, the government is doing it to protect the victims and give a clear signal to people who want or intend to do the same that the punishment will be hard and great. The criminals on the other hand do it as a different activity, out of pure coldness and selfishness.
To say that someone understands nothing is unrealistic and ultimately fallacious. I presume you mean that they do not understand a point?
Opinion is not relevant to truth period.
I would not presume to know that my opposition is mentally ill. I attempt to clarify my point - i'm not very good at presenting arguments.
Yes, but I did not ask what you believe. What you personally believe is not in question here. I asked you to prove or otherwise support this base assertion of yours. You have failed to do so.
You are saying it is better for society to have a death penalty. Therefore you DO say there is "better", but like evil you never prove or even describe what you think that is supposed to be.
I never suggested that. False dilemma anyway. You cannot prove yourself right by inventing alternatives and rejecting them.
But we already know that. I never said "flaws". Your version of "flaw" is clearly different to Mine.
The point is that society commits so many more murder via death penalty, war, suicide, hunting, mass-murder of chickens, abortion, family-unit structure/children as a poison container genocide system, state-sponsored assassinations, damaging the ecology of other countries and allowing them to starve etc etc etc etc.
You admitted society murders. Ok. But if your only basis is murder, then it must apply to society greater than any individual criminal. Its a flaw in your argument - it's special pleading fallacy and a contradiction.
Wrong. First, society facilitates and sponsors murder such as assassinations, war and death penalties. The individuals here carry out murder on behalf of society.
What you suggest then is murder itself in principal cannot be wrong, so it can also be right.
You just arbitrarily declare and presume these things. You are making it up.
1. Murder cannot prevent murder. The notion is INSANE! Its like suggesting that eating bananas prevents the eating of bananas. Something cannot be its own prevention. You are just murdering another person. Its further murder. You can prevent it by locking the murderer away so that he cannot do it anymore. Thats another option. There are many more options we could suggest, that all involve stopping a murder. Therefore, its not about prevention.
2. You just label them innocent civilians. You cannot show they are, or why that should matter. These are the innocents that murder via abortion, support and vote in governments that go to war, allow other to starve etc etc etc. And of course, support a system to commits murder on their behalf.
3. You cannot say even if murder was prevented (which 1 proved you wrong) why and how that renders murder right.
4. If murder can be right, how can you say the murderer is wrong? He might have murdered a girl who would grow up to start world-war-3. Who could judge what was best?
Yes you do : you made positive claim and this positive claim is the basis for your entire argument. At least what you claim is the basis.
I dispute that. However, its a moot point now. This does not prove your claim above either. In fact, it says that you cannot prove your claim as you say all these stats are irrelevant. Thanx for that.
Did not.
That not what was said. Society itself cannot be in danger. So you are reduced for protecting the rights/life of individuals, and the criminal murderer is an individual.
Rest in part II - but will be limited as all your arguments rest and fall on the same basis and you just repeat that basis.
Part II
See, you cannot make the difference inherently in murder itself. You add some other factor onto murder. You are being selective by arbitrary belief. That is irrational. Both "civilians" and criminals are human beings, and both are being murdered in the examples.
So, prey-tell, why is it that and what is is that makes this so ?
The Q was :
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06_politic.html
See, you cannot make the difference inherently in murder itself. You add some other factor onto murder. You are being selective by arbitrary belief. That is irrational. Both "civilians" and criminals are human beings, and both are being murdered in the examples.
So, prey-tell, why is it that and what is is that makes this so ?
What are you suggesting?
You reply, but do not solve the problems I raise.
No, you never did that. You suggested that criminals create criminals. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
You wont answer because you believe it? I want an answer - and I want it better than its just your personal belief.
The Q was :
Answer it, if you know how, or admit that you obviously cannot.
Take Carl Panzram. Take history when hands were cut of for stealing loaves of bread. Crime did not stop. Stopping child abuse is the number one thing that can stop murder. Try reading some psychohistory :
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06_politic.html
Part III
Exactly HOW did this transference take place? You just ignored the issue again, like you always do. See, the murders I mention are NOT even committed by criminals. So that is no excuse for society. Society commits murder via death penalty, war, abortion etc. I hardly think these things are the fault of individual criminals.
Perhaps the punishment I am giving you in this debate will have to do.
Its an inconsistency in your argument, clearly. If you think that responding in kind in hypocrisy and inconsistency is a great weapon, then your mind is utterly brainwashed by society.
The problem is that they have never worked, they are utterly immoral, they are hypocritical, they are unjust and lie-based.
Exactly HOW did this transference take place? You just ignored the issue again, like you always do. See, the murders I mention are NOT even committed by criminals. So that is no excuse for society. Society commits murder via death penalty, war, abortion etc. I hardly think these things are the fault of individual criminals.
You dont explain it, you claim it and provide no evidence or proof of your claims. Your argument is just to presume society and your view is right automatically.
But that is not what you say. You say murder an be right. You say that taking life is not the problem. You say that there is no reference for life, based on the mindset of the criminal you condemn!
But thats what you and your society does!
Perhaps the punishment I am giving you in this debate will have to do.
I mean that she understand nothing of what I say on this topic.
Correct.
And you have to admit, I'm giving GOP a thrashing.
You just answered your own question, asking for what is "better" as you claim I claim, is by using the death penalty.
You mean like you're doing?
And never said you did either, but you keep saying I believe society is oh so good, and then I tell you that there are flaws. Again: Read my entire post.
To you it must apply to society, but for me there's no difficulty in saying I support capital punishment but I don't support murder in the streets. If you find that hard to accept is totally okay for me, and I'll continue debating you on the subject.
And where's your basis for saying that?
Exactly, preventing killings before they occur by having these forms of punishment.
And here's what you earlier blamed me for. You're inventing alternatives to prove your point, these are all recognized as innocent civilians as long as they are law abiding citizens who don't commit crime.
Look at Johannesburg, in South Africa they haven't had executions since 1991 but the criminal statistics in Johannesburg is one of the most horrible in the world.
No one can judge that until this "girl" has started the world war. Life is completely unpredictable. But again, as you've asked me so many times, and obviously refused to read the answer to: Murder is wrong when it is committed as a deliberate action to hurt a civilian. Murder is right when it is committed by our laws to protect law abiding citizens from criminals.
They are murdered for different reasons.
It is so because criminals have actually committed a crime, when you're killing someone, and you are fully aware of what you're doing, there's no excuse for it. You show that you're sick and that you have the capability to commit murder again, therefore to protect the innocent law abiding citizens in society this criminal must be permanently removed.
I am SAYING that South Africa has a higher murder rate than the US does, even though it hasn't executed anyone for almost 20 years. This shows what you claimed as wrong, even though the US is above the UK on the statistics, the US also comes far under countries that currently doesn't practice capital punishment.
And again: Have already answered it. You asked a question, and the way you choose to angle it is not my problem. You asked that society also needs to be condemned, and then I answered that you shouldn't condemn society. Now if you're displeased with how you angled your own question is really not my problem.
Wrong. Never denied that it was murder in the first place, how can you then say I admitted to it?
Why is it so important to you to speak of me as a person? A little off-topic, but even after I've told you not to, you continue doing so, so just curious why it's so important to you.
And I've never said that it's right to have death penalties for criminals who haven't killed anyone. So again, who's ignoring the issue?
I don't see you doing anything different than just stating that it is the "Truth". And what makes you so honest?
Last edited:
GOP, you are refusing to face up to your errors.
I know you can see them, because you have changed your lingo to dodge the faults in your position.
You don't answer honestly.
1)
Take post #286. I clearly made a point there. Yet in your reply (which you buried deep into post#289 is "Never denied that it was murder in the first place, how can you then say I admitted to it?".
You deliberately and dishonestly slipped the point of what I said. You obviously cannot admit your faults and problems inherent with your answers.
2)
Seer TT: "3. You cannot say even if murder was prevented (which 1 proved you wrong) why and how that renders murder right."
You reply : "Look at Johannesburg, in South Africa they haven't had executions since 1991 but the criminal statistics in Johannesburg is one of the most horrible in the world. "
That is nothing to do with what was asked of you. You just repeat the same mantra no matter what the question asks of you.
3)
In response to being asked why it is society can facilitate and sponser murders via death penalty, war, abortion, assassinations etc you give responses that only duck this issue:
You say "And I've never said that it's right to have death penalties for criminals who haven't killed anyone. So again, who's ignoring the issue?"
You know full well what the fault in your position is. If criminals are bad because they do murders, if murder wrong, how do you explain the murders I have listed as society commits them? Its a complete and fundamental fault in your argument.
Just saying "Oh, they are criminals" does not explain it. Just saying "We murder to stop murders" does not answer it. You have ignored all the points I made and all the faults in your position.
You are hereby banned from all further replies, as you are either a troll, or you are incapable of rational and honest thought.
I know you can see them, because you have changed your lingo to dodge the faults in your position.
You don't answer honestly.
1)
Take post #286. I clearly made a point there. Yet in your reply (which you buried deep into post#289 is "Never denied that it was murder in the first place, how can you then say I admitted to it?".
You deliberately and dishonestly slipped the point of what I said. You obviously cannot admit your faults and problems inherent with your answers.
2)
Seer TT: "3. You cannot say even if murder was prevented (which 1 proved you wrong) why and how that renders murder right."
You reply : "Look at Johannesburg, in South Africa they haven't had executions since 1991 but the criminal statistics in Johannesburg is one of the most horrible in the world. "
That is nothing to do with what was asked of you. You just repeat the same mantra no matter what the question asks of you.
3)
In response to being asked why it is society can facilitate and sponser murders via death penalty, war, abortion, assassinations etc you give responses that only duck this issue:
You say "And I've never said that it's right to have death penalties for criminals who haven't killed anyone. So again, who's ignoring the issue?"
You know full well what the fault in your position is. If criminals are bad because they do murders, if murder wrong, how do you explain the murders I have listed as society commits them? Its a complete and fundamental fault in your argument.
Just saying "Oh, they are criminals" does not explain it. Just saying "We murder to stop murders" does not answer it. You have ignored all the points I made and all the faults in your position.
You are hereby banned from all further replies, as you are either a troll, or you are incapable of rational and honest thought.
Just as honest as you are.
It is directly attached to your question, again read my responses instead of just copy/pasting them into your post and blaming me for something you obviously haven't even read.
Of course it goes directly back to your question. Earlier you claimed that the US is a country with a high number of criminals as a direct consequence of American laws and I proved you wrong. It's difficult to see, I am sure, but instead of blaming me for not answering your questions you should read my answer first and remember what you've written earlier.
And this is something I've explained for you so many times, actually in my post just above yours. Obviously you've failed to read that one, too.
Just like you ignored almost every single question in my last post?
The fact is capital punishment has never been proven to deter capital crimes. and, if one innocent person is put to death by a system which strives for justice then shouldn't we as a civilized people rise above and not continue on same path? Killing a murderer does what? It certainly doesn't make me feel any better.
Correct. Further, the Forbidden Truth is that the death penalty societal murder smokescreen not only increases murders due to the fact it commits them, but also increases the undertaking of personal murders that society has arbitrarily deemed to be "criminal" ones.
More to the point, it is utterly immoral for society to murder its tortured victim-creation. Society simply has no legitimate business murdering these "criminal" victims even if it deterred them.
It does not matter if they are labelled innocent or not. "innocent person" is just an insane and irrational label invented by society in order to attempt to hide the fact that it itself is brutally murdering human beings.
Society absolutely needs to murder and brutalize the citizen-slaves in order to operate. Society needs to warp and break each citizen-slave and addict them to lies, myths and the need to socialize, "fit in", and require a poison-container. Poison containers are explained here and here.
The purpose of the death penalty is obviously nothing to do with stopping the criminal from murdering. Thats because
1. DP is a murder itself.
2. Society commits more murders than any criminal and thus proves it has no interest in stopping murders in principal.
3. You can achieve this goal by locking up the prisoner in a secure area (i am not saying that society should do this - I point out there are options).
4. There is no legitimate purpose to the DP.
The purpose of the death penalty is simply to relieve the deep-seated rage, frustration, hate, anger and other emotional issues of the citizen-slaves (that society itself is responsible for creating) via a brutal murder. It is important to realise that due to the aspect of false-morality based brainwashing controls that society must always create societal permission to cathartically savor a brutal murder, but also an illusion of justification.
Moral programming and co-ertion are the top enforcers of society. Societal leaders have applied this false morality to acts of personal murder. Therefore, society must create lies and illusions that somehow this exact same action of murder is somehow morally acceptable to support and witness.
The fact is that the masses are emotionally cleansed via this act of murder on your behalfs. They accept the delusional "reasons" that society offers them without any legitimate analysis so that they can keep their feelings of decency while supporting and being part of a brutal murder act.
Last edited:
I'm only against forced death penalty. I believe if someone who committed a crime is truly sincere, alternative punishments can be made.
There are all forced.
There is no basis in Truth, sanity or morality to punish anyone.
I'm for capital punishment and corporal punishment too. For too long society has been rotting from inside. There is no deterrent to crime. In fact, in many sub cultures it is a badge of honour or rite of passage. A true deterrent to crime would be the infliction of pain or death.
This stance has no Truth-based legitimacy. The reason why you are for these things is because of deep-seated frustration, anxiety and rage.
You likely also harbour feelings inferior and weak, and want to use these things to lash out at those who you feel are a threat or have shown they are a threat to your personal wellbeing - albeit you are in denial of these things. You need others to do for you what you cannot believe that you can achieve yourself.
Incorrect. Society today is stronger than ever before. You just falsely presume that society represents goodness, whereas society represents lies, myths, derangements, fascism, malevolence, genocide etc.
Society has no legitimate business labeling anything a crime.
"it is" needs to be defined properly.
Not only is that utterly immoral, but society has no right to punish or judge its created victims in any way.
There is no evidence to support your assertion. There have been countries that have done so, and have had a serious crime problem. There have been countries that have had little issue with serial killers, then used outrageous levels of unjust punishment only to find a rapid up-serge in serial killings.
No, this is not designed to be of benefit or solve a problem. It is the expression of your personal desire to harm other human beings, but still delude yourself that you have moral decency by targeting criminals.
I think that depending on the country you are living in, capital punishment might indeed by necessary. Mind you, as a law student, I firmly believe that the crime must fit the punishment and there are indeed heinous crimes which deserve nothing other than the death penalty.
However, having said that, I think that life imprisonment in certain circumstances (e.g. without parole, with hard labour etc.) might actually be worse than the death penalty as the prisoner is undergoing punishment over the rest of his natural life for his crime.
So I think this is a very strange issue to debate. On the one hand I would argue that the death penalty is actually the EASY way out for many criminals, but strangely it appears that for political reasons death sentence is a very sensitive issue.
In my country we still have the death penalty, but for "rarest of rare cases" (e.g. in crimes that are so heinous and lacking all extenuating circumstances that the court is compelled to determine that the continued existence of the criminal is a danger to society)
However, having said that, I think that life imprisonment in certain circumstances (e.g. without parole, with hard labour etc.) might actually be worse than the death penalty as the prisoner is undergoing punishment over the rest of his natural life for his crime.
So I think this is a very strange issue to debate. On the one hand I would argue that the death penalty is actually the EASY way out for many criminals, but strangely it appears that for political reasons death sentence is a very sensitive issue.
In my country we still have the death penalty, but for "rarest of rare cases" (e.g. in crimes that are so heinous and lacking all extenuating circumstances that the court is compelled to determine that the continued existence of the criminal is a danger to society)
Ahh. I see. Because you have no argument to the contrary you resort to a personal attack. I've dealt with trolls like you before. Do not presume to know me, or to lecture me on my morals, values or other.
The reason I am for these things is because of the way things used to be, and the way they are now. That is the truth of my statement.
Similar threads
