I disagree. I don’t subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that’s why I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle
You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it’s OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don’t convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don’t want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That’s not even an argument, just an opinion.
you don’t keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.
so they need to be killed. I do agree that the state shouldn’t be making the decision, but Vietnam is weird and still at least dresses up as communist.
Taking their money away isn’t enough. These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power. I’m not sure what the answer is but taking the money won’t solve the problem in every case.
it takes seconds, other way takes years, and its not worth risking it getting away. it’s not human anymore, and its a danger to humans, so if its not down for trying to be human again; kill it. don’t waste the effort when there are living people who need help.
And you end up with dirty sheets. No matter how fast it is it doesn’t address your problem.
Don’t call people “it” my dude.
Irrespective how monstrous a person acts they’re still a human and you can’t distance yourself and your capacity to engage in the same monsterousness they did by dehumanizing them.
so I dont care about biology-on a moral level; obviously its cool and I need to think about it at lunch- a life is precious for actual reasons
and being wealthy diminishes just about all of those reasons.scientifically, there are studies that prove it. the wealthy are less intelligent less logic less compassionate less connected to the world. they dehumanize, in the terms that matter to me, themselves.
I’m not suggesting you should get the wall the moment your income slips into six figures, but in extreme cases, where all humanity has fled, theres nothing worth keeping there. its an it. no moral wrong in killing it, at least no more than a rat.
now, I’m not going to go around smashing rats in a hydraulic press for fun. that’s sick. but I’m only going to spend so much time doing catch and release in my pantry before I try poison or snapping their necks, because I have other fucking shit to do with my life, and I dont consider the rat worth that much fucking time.
biionaires get coddled from every direction. if nurturing warm fuzzy feelings were going to work, they would have by now, so I’m in favor of actually fixing the problem. that means a guillotine.
I disagree. I don’t subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that’s why I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it’s OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don’t convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don’t want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That’s not even an argument, just an opinion.
No, the state killing people is objectively wrong.
Fucking lol. I love Lemmy. I’ve never seen such an obscure group of people speak in absolutes so consistently. Puts reddit to shame.
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG”
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR EVIL”
I don’t decide. The state murdering people is wrong. I just have the moral wherewithal to recognize the fact.
Which isn’t hard because it’s objectively true.
Hope this helps.
Ok, I’ll play along for a bit.
Prove it is wrong. Use facts and data to prove capital punishment is wrong.
Steven-Chowder-at-a-card-table over here.
I’m not gonna “debate me!” somebody who think murder is cool and good; it isn’t.
I don’t know who that is. Sorry.
Because you can’t. Because it’s completely subjective. You’ve got nothing. Just whiny emotions.
deleted by creator
you don’t keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.
so they need to be killed. I do agree that the state shouldn’t be making the decision, but Vietnam is weird and still at least dresses up as communist.
Once you take the money they aren’t billionaires anymore.
Taking their money away isn’t enough. These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power. I’m not sure what the answer is but taking the money won’t solve the problem in every case.
So take their money too.
but money is just an idea; easier to put a bullet in them than rewrite the entire social perception of them.
It’s easier to put bullets in things than to do alot of things, what’s your point?
It’s easier to shoot someone than to change your sheets but it doesn’t make your bed smell less of piss.
it takes seconds, other way takes years, and its not worth risking it getting away. it’s not human anymore, and its a danger to humans, so if its not down for trying to be human again; kill it. don’t waste the effort when there are living people who need help.
And you end up with dirty sheets. No matter how fast it is it doesn’t address your problem.
Don’t call people “it” my dude.
Irrespective how monstrous a person acts they’re still a human and you can’t distance yourself and your capacity to engage in the same monsterousness they did by dehumanizing them.
so I dont care about biology-on a moral level; obviously its cool and I need to think about it at lunch- a life is precious for actual reasons
and being wealthy diminishes just about all of those reasons.scientifically, there are studies that prove it. the wealthy are less intelligent less logic less compassionate less connected to the world. they dehumanize, in the terms that matter to me, themselves.
I’m not suggesting you should get the wall the moment your income slips into six figures, but in extreme cases, where all humanity has fled, theres nothing worth keeping there. its an it. no moral wrong in killing it, at least no more than a rat.
now, I’m not going to go around smashing rats in a hydraulic press for fun. that’s sick. but I’m only going to spend so much time doing catch and release in my pantry before I try poison or snapping their necks, because I have other fucking shit to do with my life, and I dont consider the rat worth that much fucking time.
biionaires get coddled from every direction. if nurturing warm fuzzy feelings were going to work, they would have by now, so I’m in favor of actually fixing the problem. that means a guillotine.