30% of GOP Presidential Candidates do NOT believe in Evolution

Really...so I am wrong by saying put pervs who cross the line outta their misery..and outta our lives is wrong...sorry but I worked in LE and ya can guarantee this perv will never see the light of day(I think not -history proves ya wrong)..I will pray for your children...and by the way it is way cheaper to eliminate this persons sorry life than pay for his/her upkeep in prison..you donate and guard them...not me...so sorry but being callus is sometimes the best approach!

What is the purpose of Capital punishment than battle?

Making victims feel better?

Eliminating threats to public safety?

Saving Money?

A combination?

As for making people feel better as I have said before people don't usually feel better watching people be executed. It doesn't bring anybody back it just adds to the death count. Living people as wretched as they may be are still more useful than dead bodies.

As far as a threat to society I certainly support life with no parole for such convicts. If we stop prosecuting people for petty victimless crimes we can ensure they stay there. I support Supermax prisons as well as more stringent lockdown procedures.

As far as saving money goes I'm sure you are well aware that executing a prisoner costs more than incarcertaing him for life because of legal costs. Now many reply that they should not have appeals and extra legal proceedings. However frequently it is shown that further evidence brought to light exonerates many who were sent to death row. If we had rapid executions innocent people would have been executed.

The innocent being executed is not acceptable.

Beyond that every person has a right to live regardless of what they have done. Some say when you murder you surrender your right to live. But to those I would say who are you surrendering it to? The government? The government doesn't give people their rights. The right to live is a human right which governments cannot legitimately abrogate. The government can't take a right it never gave.

Now we have a right to protect ourselves from danger and if we had no way to protect ourselves from murderers I would accept execution but a good prison system if managed properly can do that without having to terminate life.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. certain behaviors lead to greater survivability of the group. That is observable. you deny this truth , because you're a death worshipping, anti-life, nihilist. You can convince people for a time that morality is 100% arbitrary, but over the course of a generation or two, they will wise up and tell you to pound sand. Go pound sand.
Click to expand...
But you cannot define exactly what those behaviors are, nor can you conclude that these behaviors are thost that *best* improve the survivability of the group.

The only objective arbiter of such questions is consensus. Otherwise, it's just elitists like you who think they know what's best for everyone else.
 
IS that the "special definition" of human being which doesn't include unborn babies? Or just the regular actual definition?

You are talking about personhood. Human is more of a biological term. I support protecting all humans. I also support the preservation of life in general where it is feasible and doesn't conflict with human interest.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
But you cannot define exactly what those behaviors are, nor can you conclude that these behaviors are thost that *best* improve the survivability of the group.

The only objective arbiter of such questions is consensus. Otherwise, it's just elitists like you who think they know what's best for everyone else.
Click to expand...


I can get very close. They are Behaviors which promote trust and cooperation, instead of suspicion and backstabbing, like truth-telling, not stealing, not killing, not sleeping with another man's wife.

Consensus can mean nothing in this regard, and oftentimes is just a pander to anti-social and base instincts.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I can get very close. They are Behaviors which promote trust and cooperation, instead of suspicion and backstabbing, like truth-telling, not stealing, not killing, not sleeping with another man's wife.

Consensus can mean nothing in this regard, and oftentimes is just a pander to anti-social and base instincts.
Click to expand...
It would all be a lot easier if you wouldn't insist on using such sophomoric, fuzzy criteria as "trust and cooperation" and "suspicion and backstabbing." You remind me of the mushy-thinking ideologues I used to deal with in the Socialist Workers Party.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It would all be a lot easier if you wouldn't insist on using such sophomoric, fuzzy criteria as "trust and cooperation" and "suspicion and backstabbing." You remind me of the mushy-thinking ideologues I used to deal with in the Socialist Workers Party.
Click to expand...
Get a dictionary, you fucking moron.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. But if you look up "Megapenis" you will.:)

Shit ornot, let's just be friends. I'll try not to call you names, and you try not to warrant the name-calling.:clink:
Click to expand...
No, Ass, I fear that's not going to work. The problem is, you see, that you don't live in the same reality as the rest of us. Whatever it is that you think you see that warrants name calling isn't apparent to the rest of us. I'm not talking about me, specifically: I'm talking about everyone you seem to believe needs to be called names. Which is to say, everyone.

No, I think I'll just start treating you the same way you treat me. It goes against my nature, in a way, but I can make the sacrifice.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. certain behaviors lead to greater survivability of the group. That is observable. you deny this truth , because you're a death worshipping, anti-life, nihilist. You can convince people for a time that morality is 100% arbitrary, but over the course of a generation or two, they will wise up and tell you to pound sand. Go pound sand.
Click to expand...
The test of "survivability" is survival, not your personal opinion as to what will improve survivability. Consensus -- social evolution -- is impartial and objective; your opinion is biased and subjective.

How are you proposing to measure whether a moral prescription improves survivability?

Some moral injunctions are universal or very nearly universal, so far as we know. Some of these are also very old. Any social prescription that falls into both these categories I'm willing to stipulate is almost certainly a survival trait. The proscriptions against murder, rape and child abuse all qualify: I won't argue against them. Theft probably does too, though that's not so obvious. The definition of "theft" depends on the definition of personal property, and that varies enormously across time and cultures. Some well documented societies have been almost completely devoid of personal property.

By the time you get down to sexual mores and "family values" you can forget it. Those vary so much that I see little or no impact on survivability at all.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Do you propose complete anarchy? Two can play at idiocy.
Click to expand...
That's a false dichotomy: the alternative to criminalizing everything is not complete anarchy.

You can't possibly criminalize every single immoral act. The legal code would be 10 times the complexity it is now, for one thing. Probably more than 10 times. More importantly not all moral values are universal. There's far too much controversy about too many of them.
 
They are Behaviors which promote trust and cooperation, instead of suspicion and backstabbing, like truth-telling, not stealing, not killing, not sleeping with another man's wife.

If the government had information that, if released, would cause panic and injury, should they tell the truth, or would it be less socially cohesive to do so?

Is it socially less cohesive for a man to steal food to feed his starving family, or that the family are starving in the first place?

What is more socially cohesive than war, the act of using moral relativism to justify killing.

As for adultary, this occurred in all of the most successfull societies in history. Why did it not bring about their downfall?

lol
 
AnyOldIron said:
They are Behaviors which promote trust and cooperation, instead of suspicion and backstabbing, like truth-telling, not stealing, not killing, not sleeping with another man's wife.

If the government had information that, if released, would cause panic and injury, should they tell the truth, or would it be less socially cohesive to do so?

Is it socially less cohesive for a man to steal food to feed his starving family, or that the family are starving in the first place?

What is more socially cohesive than war, the act of using moral relativism to justify killing.

As for adultary, this occurred in all of the most successfull societies in history. Why did it not bring about their downfall?

lol
Click to expand...

I believe they should reveal the information.

And of course there has been some breaking on an individual basis of the general stability creating credos, but they are exceptions to the general order, And still generally considered BAD.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
That's a false dichotomy: the alternative to criminalizing everything is not complete anarchy.

You can't possibly criminalize every single immoral act. The legal code would be 10 times the complexity it is now, for one thing. Probably more than 10 times. More importantly not all moral values are universal. There's far too much controversy about too many of them.
Click to expand...

No. it's a statement equal in absurdity to the other.
 
Do you propose complete anarchy? Two can play at idiocy.

Don't be obtuse Asshat. I ask that question because you say those things are important for a cohesive society. It that alone were what we sought than there is no reason to say murder should be illegal but lying should not. Obviously something else is at work there and instead of a stupid retort I was trying to get a more thoughtful response from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top