This is outragous!!! warning ***GRAPHIC***

[Snorri1234]

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death.

Actually they did!

Who are they? And where did they say it?

[Neoteny]

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death.

Actually they did!

Well, I'll let them handle that.

I think the main point is that killing someone, in all cases, is morally wrong, even if there is an uneven balance on the scale of justice. Rustovich can claim he has contradicted that all he wants (he hasn't);

I have, the problem is you have actually changed some of the details of the argument, maybe without realising.

moral revenge is not a valid reason to kill someone when that person is locked up and is no harm to anyone else. I don't want to see them released, but I don't think they should be killed.

Put simply: killing of humans is wrong in all cases not directly involved with direct defense of self or loved ones. If the criminal is of no threat, he or she should not be killed. The horrors of a particular crime may make this judgment seem unfair, but we are debasing ourselves by succumbing to the urge for low retribution.

To me its not about revenge or retribution, permanent imprisonment still means they pose a risk and they still cause a drain on society.

A negligible risk and an economic drain perhaps, which is acceptable when one considers the moral drain involved in killing people, innocent or guilty.

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death. I think the main point is that killing someone, in all cases, is morally wrong, even if there is an uneven balance on the scale of justice. Rustovich can claim he has contradicted that all he wants (he hasn't); moral revenge is not a valid reason to kill someone when that person is locked up and is no harm to anyone else. I don't want to see them released, but I don't think they should be killed.

Put simply: killing of humans is wrong in all cases not directly involved with direct defense of self or loved ones. If the criminal is of no threat, he or she should not be killed. The horrors of a particular crime may make this judgment seem unfair, but we are debasing ourselves by succumbing to the urge for low retribution.

I agree, except that some people commit crimes so heneous they are a risk even within prison or, who's crimes are so heneous even the chance that they might be released or escape is just to great a chance for society.

Then you have a whole other group (gang leaders, etc.) who are able to orchastrate or commit crimes while in prison.

Those are the sorts of people I think might need capitol punishment.

Revenge has nothing to do with my view. I don't feel revenge is a proper justification. Just protection.

I feel that there are ways around those facets of criminality. I have less problem with complete isolation of criminals (cruel or unusual?) than I do with killing them. They got themselves into prison, but it is still morally reprehensible to kill them.

[Rustovitch]

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death.

Actually they did!

Who are they? And where did they say it?

If you are going to pass judgement on my posts shouldn't you at least learn what the argument is about?

[khazalid]

just one quick question then..

you can kill and eat a cow because it is less sentient than you are - lower in the food chain. i might not agree with it but most people certainly do.

you can abort a foetus up to around 30 weeks because it is presumably (about) as sentient as a cow.

a baby (0-18 months lets say, for the sake of argument) is no more aware or valuable than a foetus or a cow. say im a mother and its my baby, what exactly are the grounds you're looking to execute me on? infanticide, abortion, hamburger - whats the difference? is it because the little sprog is cuter? is it the vulnerability in the baby blue eyes? there might have been a case for it back in the mists of time before there were several billion children too many, but not now. if anyone can tell me why exactly the life of a - and i use the term in its truest definition - parasitic infant should be punishable by death then i'll buy them a premium and sit on three carrots on webcam for them.

[Snorri1234]

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death.

Actually they did!

Who are they? And where did they say it?

If you are going to pass judgement on my posts shouldn't you at least learn what the argument is about?

If you are going to assert something shouldn't you show evidence for it?

I have read the entire thread and haven't seen anyone claiming killing and raping babies is the same as executing a criminal.

[Rustovitch]

if anyone can tell me why exactly the life of a - and i use the term in its truest definition - parasitic infant should be punishable by death then i'll buy them a premium and sit on three carrots on webcam for them.

<sigh>

[khazalid]

resounding.

[finchboy]

just one quick question then..

you can kill and eat a cow because it is less sentient than you are - lower in the food chain. i might not agree with it but most people certainly do.

you can abort a foetus up to around 30 weeks because it is presumably (about) as sentient as a cow.

a baby (0-18 months lets say, for the sake of argument) is no more aware or valuable than a foetus or a cow. say im a mother and its my baby, what exactly are the grounds you're looking to execute me on? infanticide, abortion, hamburger - whats the difference? is it because the little sprog is cuter? is it the vulnerability in the baby blue eyes? there might have been a case for it back in the mists of time before there were several billion children too many, but not now. if anyone can tell me why exactly the life of a - and i use the term in its truest definition - parasitic infant should be punishable by death then i'll buy them a premium and sit on three carrots on webcam for them.

The difference between the Cow, foetus and infant, and their variance for treatments under the law is the subjects potential for consciousness not sentience but consciousness.

Taking your example through the grey area spectrum it reads thus;

The Black Area- the cow will never consider anything higher than it's base urges, i.e viable progeny food etc, it has no potential other than its basic urges and never raise it's self above them (Kantian lower pleasures if you like) You may say how do we know? Perhaps cows are secretly deep thinkers! The truth remains we must judge by action rather than supposition. A cow acts as though it does not comprehend it's own existence in the universe and as such we must assume that it doesn't. Thus the cow becomes Hamburgers and no one really minds that much.


The Grey Area- The foetus has the potential for consciousness, it has the potential, once come to term, to act over and above it's most basic instincts, altruism for instance - eg. care of the disabled (those for whom nature will not run it's course due to human intervention) BUT at this stage the foetus' fate is indivisibly linked to it's mother, i.e it's potential for consciousness is directly controlled and rightfully owned by it's mother and as such under the law it can be aborted. The foetus is not a deep thinker but from our experience of post-foetus' or "people" we know they can be. As such, under the law the foetus can be aborted as property. It's like shredding blank musical manuscript paper, it hasn't got a symphony on it yet and it's existence is predicated by it's owner


The White Area, once the child has come to term it's life and it's potential for consciousness, it's potential to write symphonies, raise a family, die sad and alone etc are it's own, the treble clef is on the Manuscript, society may help it on it's way, feed it, educate it, blah blah, but at this stage the life belongs to the child. The potential for the fullness of human existence is caused by it's self-ownership, it has right and freedoms and a human separate from any other individual. Admittedly it wouldn't last long without the care of others but the points is it's existence is no longer directly and indivisibly connected to it's mother. For this reason the stipulation of the law for the termination of this life is murder, rather than abortion, rather than McDonalds.

Unfortunately I don't think I apply for that tempting premium and wonderful carrot video, because... the white area, the murder of the hypothetical infant or the infant that is the subject of this thread or any human for that matter, has never nor ever will demand death. This is because capitol punishment in any form is a direct admittance that we can do nothing about a problem other than deal with it's results. i.e that we corporately admit that people are innately evil and that we as a society can do nothing about it other than kill it.

F

[khazalid]

excellent post, but i'd like to take you to task on a few key areas.

A cow acts as though it does not comprehend it's own existence in the universe and as such we must assume that it doesn't. Thus the cow becomes Hamburgers and no one really minds that much.

i think the relative degrees of comprehension are a little irrelevant to a discussion based on the right to life/imposition of death. an animal, specifically a barnyard one, is certainly aware of its impending doom. i know firsthand that pigs look pretty terrified just before the stun gun. symphony or not, it actually has a greater capacity for fear and pain than a newborn - in this context i think your argument looks more like a value judgement than a logical progression.

once the child has come to term it's life and it's potential for consciousness, it's potential to write symphonies, raise a family, die sad and alone etc are it's own, the treble clef is on the Manuscript, society may help it on it's way, feed it, educate it, blah blah, but at this stage the life belongs to the child.

if it wouldnt last long without the help of others, as you delicately put it (ie - it is still in a parasitic stage of development) then i fail to see what the practical difference is, not to say the philosophical one, which you clearly have some grounding in.

one last point, somewhat unrelated.

This is because capitol punishment in any form is a direct admittance that we can do nothing about a problem other than deal with it's results. i.e that we corporately admit that people are innately evil and that we as a society can do nothing about it other than kill it.

not strictly true - its the old 'deterrent effect' thang rearing its ugly head. whether you prescribe to that particular theory or not doesnt matter, it is explicitly stated as a utilitarian positive in the statutes of every country that uses it.

and re: kantian reference, i'd like to recommend some of peter singer's work to you, following the philosophical lines of the categorical imperative et al.

once again, very nice response!

[khazalid]

i'd like to add as well, that i'm not trying to advocate infanticide, i'm just arguing that it is a far lesser crime than murder and should be sentenced as such. people get pretty hysterical about kids without ever thinking it through at any depth greater than 'burn the pedo', so to speak.

[SultanOfSurreal]

No, the comparison is between killing one person adjucated to be guilty in a relatively humane way and killing multiple innocent lives in a heneous manner.

killing is never "humane"

also am i the only one who doesn't see any information in the original post? i thought this thread was a joke about apey at first, but there seems to have been real crimes committed

in any case, all the calls for "putting him in genpop" and stuff would be hilarious if not tragic. the concept of prison justice is a complete myth and, further, appalling to any sane human being. convicted murderers and rapists do not have some sort of noble thieve's guild morality or whatever the f*ck it is you people seem to think, they are psychopaths who use violence indiscriminately and, to the degree that they "punish" molesters more harshly, they do so only as a convenient excuse to do said violence.

if you turn to murderers and the rest of society's lowest dredges to exact your version of yee-haw justice, you are contemptible trash and should be treated with nothing but scorn. (bonus scorn if you think rape is ever a justified response to crime)

[khazalid]

theres a youtube link in it, you probably missed it in the sea of gibberish

[Symmetry]

theres a youtube link in it, you probably missed it in the sea of gibberish

Seriously- how many mistakes can one person make in a single title line of five words?

We've got: misspelling of one word; multiple use of exclamation marks where one would suffice; lack of capitalisation; use of asterisks when not needed; multiple employment of said asterisks; unnecessary capitalisation; and lack of punctuation between "warning" and "***GRAPHIC***".

By my count, the poster makes more mistakes than words used. I'm a bit of a grammar Nazi, sure, but seriously, people...

[khazalid]

nice work with the semi colon

[Symmetry]

When I'm in grammar Nazi mode I do my best not to make mitsakes.

[khazalid]

[Rustovitch]

When I'm in grammar Nazi mode I do my best not to make mitsakes.

Well your increased efforts certainly pay dividends.

[Symmetry]

When I'm in grammar Nazi mode I do my best not to make mitsakes.

Well your increased efforts certainly pay dividends.

Ah man- you got me. Busted. Hoisted by my own petard. How ironic! It's hubris, simple hubris. How could I have dared to think that I could escape such eagle-eyes?

Ah well- at least Khazalid got the joke.

[khazalid]

the only way it could have been any more obvious would have involved fireworks and rimming...

[finchboy]

excellent post, but i'd like to take you to task on a few key areas.

A cow acts as though it does not comprehend it's own existence in the universe and as such we must assume that it doesn't. Thus the cow becomes Hamburgers and no one really minds that much.

i think the relative degrees of comprehension are a little irrelevant to a discussion based on the right to life/imposition of death. an animal, specifically a barnyard one, is certainly aware of its impending doom. i know firsthand that pigs look pretty terrified just before the stun gun. symphony or not, it actually has a greater capacity for fear and pain than a newborn - in this context i think your argument looks more like a value judgement than a logical progression.

Okay fair enough, you can say that an animal has the acumen to fear it's own death, but it's not the same thing as saying it can comprehend oblivion. Every living thing wants to...em.. live... pigs surely don't like slaughter houses, but pigs will never comprehend anything outside the confines of their existence. The infant, although it cannot do this in it's early stages, certainly does have the capacity for this consciousness, as proved by the fact that in later life it will consider the value of things outside of it's own basic needs.

once the child has come to term it's life and it's potential for consciousness, it's potential to write symphonies, raise a family, die sad and alone etc are it's own, the treble clef is on the Manuscript, society may help it on it's way, feed it, educate it, blah blah, but at this stage the life belongs to the child.

if it wouldnt last long without the help of others, as you delicately put it (ie - it is still in a parasitic stage of development) then i fail to see what the practical difference is, not to say the philosophical one, which you clearly have some grounding in.

The practical difference is that "parasitic" refers to to a fixed biological union between host and interloper. Anyone can feed a born child where as only one person can feed the foetus. Does this mean that the born child belongs to anyone who could potentially feed it, nah of course not, it's its own, the rest of society does right by it because this is what a humane society does.

one last point, somewhat unrelated.

This is because capitol punishment in any form is a direct admittance that we can do nothing about a problem other than deal with it's results. i.e that we corporately admit that people are innately evil and that we as a society can do nothing about it other than kill it.

not strictly true - its the old 'deterrent effect' thang rearing its ugly head. whether you prescribe to that particular theory or not doesnt matter, it is explicitly stated as a utilitarian positive in the statutes of every country that uses it.

Agreed... Mill and Bentham have allot to answer for, we need a new thread for why utilitarianism sucks i think

and re: kantian reference, i'd like to recommend some of peter singer's work to you, following the philosophical lines of the categorical imperative et al.

I've read an article here or there, I often throw Kantian spiel around but its only really a smoke screen, the minutiae of recent work on him is mostly lost on me!

once again, very nice response!

Thanks, nice response to my response!

F

[jonesthecurl]

When I'm in grammar Nazi mode I do my best not to make mitsakes.

Well your increased efforts certainly pay dividends.

Actually, mitsakes are a Japanese cocktail of unusual strength which Symmetry is quite right not to make whilst being a grammar nazi - he might get it wrong under the affluence of incahol..