Replace lethal injection with nitrogen asphyxiation?

AnyOldIron said:
its called a hypothetical discussion. shove it.

Imagine this discussion without its offical clothing.

What's the 'better' way of killing someone, method a or method b?

Like I said, bloody barbarian...
Click to expand...

AnyOldIron, the support for the death penalty in the US is 70%. It's even greater in Mississippi. It's pointless for me to have a discussion on banning the death penalty, because it isn't going to happen. If we're killing people, we should do it in the MOST HUMANE method possible, no? Stop being a dogmatic ass, and learn reality.
 
AnyOldIron, the support for the death penalty in the US is 70%. It's even greater in Mississippi. It's pointless for me to have a discussion on banning the death penalty, because it isn't going to happen. If we're killing people, we should do it in the MOST HUMANE method possible, no? Stop being a dogmatic ass, and learn reality.

Or, we could argue the underlying arguments behind it, in the hope that the 70% see the innate contradictions in their argument and realise that they are bloody barbarians?

Because to me, discussing the best way for the state to kill its own citizens is barbaric, what we'd expect in NK or Iran.
 
AnyOldIron said:
AnyOldIron, the support for the death penalty in the US is 70%. It's even greater in Mississippi. It's pointless for me to have a discussion on banning the death penalty, because it isn't going to happen. If we're killing people, we should do it in the MOST HUMANE method possible, no? Stop being a dogmatic ass, and learn reality.

Or, we could argue the underlying arguments behind it, in the hope that the 70% see the innate contradictions in their argument and realise that they are bloody barbarians?

Because to me, discussing the best way for the state to kill its own citizens is barbaric, what we'd expect in NK or Iran.
Click to expand...

OK, send 'em off to the gas chamber then. Turn up the chlorine. Yeah, this is such an effective way to abolish the death penalty!
 
OK, send 'em off to the gas chamber then. Turn up the chlorine. Yeah, this is such an effective way to abolish the death penalty!

If one of the premises is untrue, the conclusion is never sound.

In this case, the untrue premise is that state killings are right, so even if the other premise states that that killing must be humane the conclusion that we have come to the right decision is wrong.

 
AnyOldIron said:
OK, send 'em off to the gas chamber then. Turn up the chlorine. Yeah, this is such an effective way to abolish the death penalty!

If one of the premises is untrue, the conclusion is never sound.

In this case, the untrue premise is that state killings are right, so even if the other premise states that that killing must be humane the conclusion that we have come to the right decision is wrong.
Click to expand...
Speaking of how to do what is going to be done in the most humane matter is not the same as saying that it is the right thing to do.

It's like arguing the sky is blue because it is "wrong". It doesn't matter if it is "wrong" for it to be blue, it will be anyway. Since it is going to be blue, let's argue what we can change first.
 
AnyOldIron said:
OK, send 'em off to the gas chamber then. Turn up the chlorine. Yeah, this is such an effective way to abolish the death penalty!

If one of the premises is untrue, the conclusion is never sound.

In this case, the untrue premise is that state killings are right, so even if the other premise states that that killing must be humane the conclusion that we have come to the right decision is wrong.
Click to expand...

Stop CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
 
Speaking of how to do what is going to be done in the most humane matter is not the same as saying that it is the right thing to do.

It's like arguing the sky is blue because it is "wrong". It doesn't matter if it is "wrong" for it to be blue, it will be anyway. Since it is going to be blue, let's argue what we can change first.

Does the accomplice in a killing who implores the killer to shoot the victim in the head rather than slowly boiling them to death on the basis that it is more humane not give implicit assent to the killing?

Wouldn't the effort used to argue for a more humane method of killing not be better used by the accomplice to persuade the killer not to kill at all?
 
Stop CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

I'm not. Sometimes the question is wrong. I'm pointing out that this question is wrong because it resembles two Nazi officers discussing which way the Nazi regime should kill the Jews. Godwin's Law not withstanding as this is a relevant comparison designed to make a specific point about how barbaric the question is.
 
The US government aren't Nazi's and criminals aren't Jews.

Godwin's Law not withstanding as this is a relevant comparison designed to make a specific point about how barbaric the question is.
Click to expand...

Analogies rarely match their comparison exactly.

If people are bad, it is ok to discuss the best way for the state to do what the person could be deemed bad for?

Doesn't that seem like an inherent contradiction? [/B]
 
Not really. They're two different subjects.

If you are having an ethics discussion on the most humane way of killing someone, then whether or not you should kill is central to the issue.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Speaking of how to do what is going to be done in the most humane matter is not the same as saying that it is the right thing to do.

It's like arguing the sky is blue because it is "wrong". It doesn't matter if it is "wrong" for it to be blue, it will be anyway. Since it is going to be blue, let's argue what we can change first.

Does the accomplice in a killing who implores the killer to shoot the victim in the head rather than slowly boiling them to death on the basis that it is more humane not give implicit assent to the killing?

Wouldn't the effort used to argue for a more humane method of killing not be better used by the accomplice to persuade the killer not to kill at all?
Click to expand...
You call them an accomplice, that is different than say... A mother imploring their killer to shoot and kill their child quickly rather than being forced to watch a torture/kill scenario.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Not really. They're two different subjects.

If you are having an ethics discussion on the most humane way of killing someone, then whether or not you should kill is central to the issue.
Click to expand...
Not true.

If a bad guy comes into your home with the intent and plan to take your family's life, you know it is coming, then implore them to make it as kind as possible, it does not mean that you have helped them to kill your family, it means that you wished for it do be done as painless as possible even though you don't want it to happen.

Realizing something is going to happen, and working towards a more humane way of doing that something is not the same as wishing for the thing to happen.
 
If a bad guy comes into your home with the intent and plan to take your family's life, you know it is coming, then implore them to make it as kind as possible, it does not mean that you have helped them to kill your family, it means that you wished for it do be done as painless as possible even though you don't want it to happen.

If someone broke into your house and was intending to kill your family, shouldn't you implore them not to kill rather than barter over the method?
 
AnyOldIron said:
If a bad guy comes into your home with the intent and plan to take your family's life, you know it is coming, then implore them to make it as kind as possible, it does not mean that you have helped them to kill your family, it means that you wished for it do be done as painless as possible even though you don't want it to happen.

If someone broke into your house and was intending to kill your family, shouldn't you implore them not to kill rather than barter over the method?
Click to expand...
At some point you must accept the inevitability.

If the act is assured what are you going to ask for, keep pleading for life as they begin the torture?

Some things are inevitable. Here, I cannot change the public opinion overnight by just saying 'barbaric'. I can, however incrementally step towards something.

Being pragmatic is not the same thing as supporting what is while you work toward a change. I may want humans to live by one thing, but until the opinion changes just repeating, "This is bad." does nothing good at all.

Here again is a person who believes their opinion so strongly that it is so black and white that even speaking of any other idea than theirs is "bad". You are doing exactly what you hate the religious right of doing.
 
Watermark said:
I believe in proportioanl representation. Does that mean I shouldn't vote because we use a different system?
Click to expand...
Well, if you even talk about anything other than a proportional system, let alone voting in one, you would just be an "accessory" to the bad system.

So, yes. If you vote you will create a hole in your soul where your anti-hypocrisy detector is.
 
HAHAHA, single member district system! I bet you feel bad without my vote! Now that I have even less representation in congress, PR will get passed any day now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top