• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio killer to get 2-drug injection untried in US

Aekos said:
Are you seriously positing that death is more valuable to the criminal than 50 years of living?
Click to expand...

Nope I'm that life in prison as innocent is just as bad as a miscarriage of justice as the death sentence.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Nope I'm that life in prison as innocent is just as bad as a miscarriage of justice as the death sentence.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Life in prison as an innocent person is awful, absolutely awful and a tragedy. But death is a greater tragedy. And the State becomes a murderer when it condones the potential killing of innocent people through the death penalty.
 
Carjosse said:
The reason the death penalty should ever be used is in the case of genocide. Life imprisonment means we take everything from them and they will never see freedom again. It is barbaric to kill someone in the name of justice especially when there could be error.
Click to expand...

So your not against the death plenty then?
 
Carjosse said:
The death penalty is barbaric and committing a crime does not remove his right to life. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. There is also always the fact there could be an error and it is hard to release a dead man.
Click to expand...

Interesting collection of bumper sticker phrases.:peace
 
Carjosse said:
The death penalty is barbaric and committing a crime does not remove his right to life. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. There is also always the fact there could be an error and it is hard to release a dead man.
Click to expand...

Carjosse said:
The reason the death penalty should ever be used is in the case of genocide. Life imprisonment means we take everything from them and they will never see freedom again. It is barbaric to kill someone in the name of justice especially when there could be error.
Click to expand...

Carjosse said:
I am only for it in cases of genocide.
Click to expand...

So what is the difference to you when it comes to genocide and let's say 1st degree murder?
 
Aekos said:
Are you asking why murder is wrong? Because the death penalty is a murderous activity by definition.
Click to expand...

I asked why government killing a citizen is "outrageous and barbaric." All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. :peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I asked why government killing a citizen is "outrageous and barbaric." All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. :peace
Click to expand...

I'll illustrate the point as a syllogism:

P1: Murder is immoral
P2: Convicted criminals are not always guilty
P3: Life is preferable to death
=
C: The death penalty is immoral and is not preferable to life in prison

Killing an innocent person, which is a risk with the death penalty, is by definition murder.
 
cpgrad08 said:
So what is the difference to you when it comes to genocide and let's say 1st degree murder?
Click to expand...

Well for one it is almost impossible to be wrongly prosecuted for genocide. There is also the fact that is the systematic killing of 1000s through abuse of power, and violations of various kinds.
 
Back when my Mawmaw was alive (that is Arkansas for Grandma), when she would see a news story about someone that had done something like this guy and raped and killed a pregnant woman, she should just say: "Some people just need a killin." I agree.
 
Carjosse said:
Well for one it is almost impossible to be wrongly prosecuted for genocide. There is also the fact that is the systematic killing of 1000s through abuse of power, and violations of various kinds.
Click to expand...

But Almost is not a 100% and according to you if their is chance an innocent could be killed then their should be no death penalty.
 
Aekos said:
I'll illustrate the point as a syllogism:

P1: Murder is immoral
P2: Convicted criminals are not always guilty
P3: Life is preferable to death
=
C: The death penalty is immoral and is not preferable to life in prison

Killing an innocent person, which is a risk with the death penalty, is by definition murder.
Click to expand...

That may work in a freshman Philosophy 101 class, but not here.

As a society we decided long ago that we sanction some civil killing. (I exclude warfare, an entirely different discussion.) When pro-choice prevailed over pro-life that milestone was passed. We decided we could live with the destruction of some human life in order to accomplish something else we deemed worth the sacrifice. For the record, I'm pro-choice; I understand why we condone abortion. Having justified en bloc the killing of assuredly innocent fetuses, there can be no claim on behalf of convicted criminals, whose death-worthiness, as a calculated matter, is nearly infinitely greater. Put most plainly, we do not hold life sacred. I'm fine with that, and I decline to indulge in a hypocritical fudge factor on behalf of shallow sentimentalism.:peace
 
US Conservative said:
Supposedly thats what happened to Kim Jong Un's uncle recently. Him and several others were stripped and put into a cage with over 100 hungry dogs. Supposedly over 300 party officials watched it take place-it took over an hour.
Kim Jong Un's executed uncle was eaten alive by 120 hungry dogs: report - World News
Click to expand...

Now that I would consider cruel and unusual punishment! Apparently political crimes are taken quite seriously in North Korea! "He was a womanizer and a traitor who tried to grab power" was the official explanation given! :wow:

Greetings, US Conservative. :2wave:
 
Jack Hays said:
That may work in a freshman Philosophy 101 class, but not here.
Click to expand...

I believe the way to tackle a syllogism is to show which premise(s) are false, or show why the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. I'd appreciate if you could do that.

As a society we decided long ago that we sanction some civil killing. (I exclude warfare, an entirely different discussion.) When pro-choice prevailed over pro-life that milestone was passed. We decided we could live with the destruction of some human life in order to accomplish something else we deemed worth the sacrifice. For the record, I'm pro-choice; I understand why we condone abortion. Having justified en bloc the killing of assuredly innocent fetuses, there can be no claim on behalf of convicted criminals, whose death-worthiness, as a calculated matter, is nearly infinitely greater. Put most plainly, we do not hold life sacred. I'm fine with that, and I decline to indulge in a hypocritical fudge factor on behalf of shallow sentimentalism.:peace
Click to expand...

This is, literally, irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about abortion. You have to show me why it is justified to kill someone who could be innocent.
 
polgara said:
Now that I would consider cruel and unusual punishment! Apparently political crimes are taken quite seriously in North Korea! "He was a womanizer and a traitor who tried to grab power" was the official explanation given! :wow:

Greetings, US Conservative. :2wave:
Click to expand...

And yet there are lefties here who think the US is the same-to make a distinction would be to discriminate and we can't have THAT can we?
 
Aekos said:
I believe the way to tackle a syllogism is to show which premise(s) are false, or show why the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. I'd appreciate if you could do that.



This is, literally, irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about abortion. You have to show me why it is justified to kill someone who could be innocent.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what you presented was not a syllogism. I had hoped not to have to point that out. As a society we have already sanctioned the killing of innocents. In the balance, the occasional wrongly convicted criminal is decimal dust compared to the social utility of the death penalty and the threat thereof.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
That may work in a freshman Philosophy 101 class, but not here.

As a society we decided long ago that we sanction some civil killing. (I exclude warfare, an entirely different discussion.) When pro-choice prevailed over pro-life that milestone was passed. We decided we could live with the destruction of some human life in order to accomplish something else we deemed worth the sacrifice. For the record, I'm pro-choice; I understand why we condone abortion. Having justified en bloc the killing of assuredly innocent fetuses, there can be no claim on behalf of convicted criminals, whose death-worthiness, as a calculated matter, is nearly infinitely greater. Put most plainly, we do not hold life sacred. I'm fine with that, and I decline to indulge in a hypocritical fudge factor on behalf of shallow sentimentalism.:peace
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

It looks like the wind chill factor is currently minus 25 degrees in Green Bay, and the sun hasn't set yet! :wow:
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but what you presented was not a syllogism. I had hoped not to have to point that out. As a society we have already sanctioned the killing of innocents. In the balance, the occasional wrongly convicted criminal is decimal dust compared to the social utility of the death penalty and the threat thereof.:peace
Click to expand...

Ah ok, I got your position. You don't care if innocent people are killed in the pursuit of killing guilty people. Got it.
 
Aekos said:
I'll illustrate the point as a syllogism:

P1: Murder is immoral
P2: Convicted criminals are not always guilty
P3: Life is preferable to death
=
C: The death penalty is immoral and is not preferable to life in prison

Killing an innocent person, which is a risk with the death penalty, is by definition murder.
Click to expand...

A syllogism requires a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. If we accept your P1 as your major premise then you P2 is presumably intended as your minor premise. Sadly, the appropriate response to P2 is: So what? There is no link between P1 and P2. Your P3, presumably meant as a conclusion, bears no relationship to either P1 or P2.:peace
 
polgara said:
:thumbs:

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

It looks like the wind chill factor is currently minus 25 degrees in Green Bay, and the sun hasn't set yet! :wow:
Click to expand...

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

It's a good game to watch at home.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
A syllogism requires a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. If we accept your P1 as your major premise then you P2 is presumably intended as your minor premise. Sadly, the appropriate response to P2 is: So what? There is no link between P1 and P2. Your P3, presumably meant as a conclusion, bears no relationship to either P1 or P2.:peace
Click to expand...

Yeah, in Aristotelian logic, maybe. I was using the term in a general sense, you could substitute it for 'argument'. Afterall, Syllogism means (literally) 'inference'.

Are you aware of first-order logic that superceded syllogistic inquiry in academia?
 
Aekos said:
Ah ok, I got your position. You don't care if innocent people are killed in the pursuit of killing guilty people. Got it.
Click to expand...

That is the judgment our society has made. I support it. It is a massive incoherence to be pro-choice but against the death penalty. Oddly, that incoherence is widespread. Most people who are pro-life support the death penalty, an equal incoherence. I prefer to be coherent.:peace
 
Aekos said:
Yeah, in Aristotelian logic, maybe. I was using the term in a general sense, you could substitute it for 'argument'. Afterall, Syllogism means (literally) 'inference'.

Are you aware of first-order logic that superceded syllogistic inquiry in academia?
Click to expand...

Your argument is nonetheless incoherent.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom