Why is murder actually wrong.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 458
#271
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Good, so you should know better.

Your argument is non unique in that it applies to every moral view that anyone could hold. 

Stop blowing up the debate into a million pieces. You haven't explained why my position is hypocritical. My position is not arbitrary, it's logical. You seemingly have this ridiculous view that as soon as someone criticizes the other person's position they have to lay all of their moral views on the table. Even if my position was inconsistent back then when I didn't clarify (and it was consistent), it isn't inconsistent now. 
#272
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Username
Some people assume that they are right all of the time.


#273
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Your argument is non unique in that it applies to every moral view that anyone could hold. 
My argument is in response to yours so maybe you should defend your views better if you don’t want a non unique retort.

Stop blowing up the debate into a million pieces.
I’m not.

You haven't explained why my position is hypocritical.
Yes I did.

My position is not arbitrary, it's logical.
I’m sure sadolite thinks the same of his.

You seemingly have this ridiculous view that as soon as someone criticizes the other person's position they have to lay all of their moral views on the table.
No, only if that criticism applies to them as well, which in this case it does.

Even if my position was inconsistent back then when I didn't clarify (and it was consistent), it isn't inconsistent now.
I am not arguing against your position, I’m arguing against the way you choose to attack sadolites, there’s a difference.
#274
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Some people assume that they are right all of the time.
Well that makes more sense then assuming your wrong all the time, I mean do you think your wrong all the time?
#275
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
My argument is in response to yours so maybe you should defend your views better if you don’t want a non unique retort.
LOL. A non-unique retort is not a logical argument. It's like saying "If you don't want me to be illogical maybe defend your views better". I have defended my views just fine, thank you. 

If you're ever in a formal debate and your opponent explains why your argument is non-unique then you better have a good reason why it isn't.  

I’m not.
It just happened again.

Yes I did.
All you've said is that my arguments against him apply to me.  I guess you can try to use my arguments against me, but if you did I'd be able to give an actual good reason why they don't apply (unlike sadolite). 

I’m sure sadolite thinks the same of his.
Another non-unique statement. Please clarify. 

No, only if that criticism applies to them as well, which in this case it does.
Lol, I've explained why it doesn't. And no, I wouldn't have to clarify my position in this case. If someone thinks that the criticism does apply to me, they'd have to be the ones to levy that claim. This is how conversations work.


#276
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I am not arguing against your position

maybe you should defend your views better
Notice how I could easily start another 2 hour line of conversation here by saying you contradicted yourself. Then I would equate positions with views. But I won't do that because I don't use frivolous semantics. Just saying. 

#277
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
A non-unique retort is not a logical argument.
There’s nothing fundamentally logical or illogical about the nature of uniqueness, so you mentioning that is irrelevant.

It's like saying "If you don't want me to be illogical maybe defend your views better".
No, not at all.

I have defended my views just fine, thank you.
I can care less what your views are, you’re taking this as a personal attack against your views and that’s not the case at all, not in the slightest.

If you're ever in a formal debate and your opponent explains why your argument is non-unique then you better have a good reason why it isn't.
There’s nothing wrong with being non-unique, you have yet to prove otherwise, you have bigger issues so how about you worry about not contradicting yourself before you attack other people’s position.

It just happened again.
Just responding to what your saying, if it’s blowing up then it’s your fault.

I guess you can try to use my arguments against me, but if you did I'd be able to give an actual good reason why they don't apply (unlike sadolite).
How would you know that? Did he discuss his position at length like you did? No he didn’t.

Another non-unique statement. Please clarify.
Well if you heard it before you should know what it means.

Lol, I've explained why it doesn't.
No, all you did was tell me the reason behind your hypocrisy, doesn’t change the fact that your a hypocrite.

If someone thinks that the criticism does apply to me, they'd have to be the ones to levy that claim.
And that’s why I did so genius.

Notice how I could easily start another 2 hour line of conversation here by saying you contradicted yourself.
No you can’t, because those two quotes are in regards to two different subjects, nice try though.

But I won't do that because I don't use frivolous semantics.
But you did just do that, you’re not slick or funny. Just saying.
#278
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
@Username
Didn't you guys hear the ending round 235525? Besides, there's blood all over the mat.
#279
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
There’s nothing fundamentally logical or illogical about the nature of uniqueness, 

There is. If you make a statement that applies to all ethical statements rather than the specific statement you're criticizing (or even any statement period), your problem isn't with me, it's with statements. 

Well if you heard it before you should know what it means.
The statement is non-unique. 

No, all you did was tell me the reason behind your hypocrisy, doesn’t change the fact that your a hypocrite.
Why am I a hypocrite?

And that’s why I did so genius.
You did, but you asked me to explain a position that I did not have to explain at the time. You did not dispute that in this last post.  

The point of the semantics thing is that I am showing you that it's easy to find a contradiction in someone's statements if you twist their words. 

I'm still waiting for an actual reason why I am a hypocrite or that my position or criticism is inconsistent.

#280
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
This argument was pissing me off, but I'm actually starting to have fun. I want to see how long this goes on for. 
#281
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
When anyone logically explains why they have a moral view that opposes another person's, the other person could always reply  "Well, I believe that my moral view is logical, too." or "You don't meet my threshold either." 
But you used the “non unique” argument first so it’s fair game.

Why am I a hypocrite?
I told you many times already.

You did, but you asked me to explain a position that I did not have to explain at the time. You did not dispute that in this last post.
Well if that happened (which I’m not sure what you’re referring to) then there’s nothing to dispute.

The point of the semantics thing is that I am showing you that it's easy to find a contradiction in someone's statements if you twist their words.
But I didn’t twist your words, everything I quoted came from you, you didn’t prove a thing.

Let me nip this in the bud right now and backtrack shall we, let’s do a thought experiment, what if sadolite responded to this question

If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
With this response

Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a crime you didn’t commit as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
 
Then what would you say?
#282
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Let me nip this in the bud right now and backtrack shall we, let’s do a thought experiment, what if sadolite responded to this question

If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a wrongful conviction as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
I would explain to him that the wrongful convictions are necessary for maintaining a society that can prevent wrongful convictions in the first place, and his are not, so his sacrifice is unjustified. I would explain to him that in order for us to be able to ensure that anything happens ethically or fairly at all, we need a functioning society. After we have a functioning society, we can approach ethics differently now that it can be evaluated period. 

I would also explain to him that in my world we actually make a good faith effort to determine whether someone is innocent or guilty. The false conviction of innocents is inevitable in any state of the society, so a government ought to exist to make sure trials happen as fairly as possible. There is nothing wrong with a false conviction as long as the false conviction was come to by people using logical and unbiased thought processes to determine whether the person is innocent or guilty. However, since it is extremely unfortunate that some are convicted wrongly, they must be given the fairest legal process possible. This is why if they are wrongly convicted and we do not kill them, when evidence may come out that vindicates them, we can let them out of prison. Sadolite's view botches the fair process of justice by making any evidence that comes out about the innocence of a convict irrelevant as if the convict is a murderer, rapist, or pedophile, they will already be dead. Though innocents getting convicted is unfortunate, they were not necessarily treated unfairly (there may have just been a circumstantial heap of evidence against them for example) by the state. Sadolite ensures that innocents get treated unfairly by killing them before evidence of their innocence can ever come out. 

These are just a couple key differences between my view and his. I'm sure I can probably come up with more as time goes on but I have work to do. 
#283
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
In addition, the existence of societies is not Draconian. It is natural and human. This is another key difference between my view and Sadolite's. When something happens that is neccesary for states to exist, it is not Draconian and so does not have the effects that Draconian, 1984-esque policies do have. When sadolite killers the murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, he is being Draconian (because a functioning society already exists when he implements the policy) and so his policies have the negative effects that Draconian policies have (i.e. the negative effect on the atmosphere, the pushing of boundaries that gives way for more Draconian policies, etc.) 
#284
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Not gonna lie to you, I didn’t even bother to read all that because like I said before the reasons as to why you accept as you do are irrelevant to the fact that you accepted for your reasons just like he accepted for his reasons, so you have no right to criticize someone for accepting for their reasons because you did the same.
#285
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Alright then. I mean everyone accepts different views of ethics for their own reason. So you have a problem with ethics then? I'm confused. 
#286
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
So you have a problem with ethics then?
No I have a problem with the way you attack someone else’s view on ethics, this isn’t the first time you’ve asked that question. There’s a clear difference.
#287
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I mean that's just how it is. I have an view and sadolite has one. I have reasons and he has reasons. I think his reasons are bad and he things mine are. We argue about it using, hopefully, logic. That's how all discussions go on this site. 
#288
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I have attacked his views on and literally just explained to you what my attacks on his views don't apply to me. What's wrong with that?
#289
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
We argue about it using, hopefully, logic.
Hypocritical arguments isn’t logic and if you want to know why your arguments are hypocritical go back and read the most recent example post #284.


#290
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Why are they hypocritical when they don't apply to me and I just explained why? 
#291
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
go back and read the most recent example post #284.
#292
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
I mean you just edited your post. And I criticize his reasons because I think he's wrong and my reasons are better than his IMO? I still fail to see a difference between this discussion and all discussions where two people have reasons and one person says another person is wrong. I could apply that same argument: "How dare you criticize this guy's position for his reasons when you accept your position for your reasons?"
#293
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
And I criticize his reasons because I think he's wrong and my reasons are better than his IMO?
You don’t know his reasons, the only reason I know your reasons is because your so hellbent on telling me, it’s besides the point.

I could apply that same argument: "How dare you criticize this guy's position for his reasons when you accept your position for your reasons?"
Except your leaving out a very important detail and that’s the fact that you didn’t just criticize his position you did it by using an argument that applies to you as well and no your reasons as to why you accept doesn’t explain why it doesn’t apply to you it’s just your view as to why you should get a pass for it but there’s nothing false about that response to the question I answered therefore it does apply to you no matter how hard you try to fight against it period.
#294
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
You don’t know his reasons, the only reason I know your reasons is because your so hellbent on telling me, it’s besides the point.

I can attack a statement without knowing the reasons for making it.

Except your leaving out a very important detail and that’s the fact that you didn’t just criticize his position you did it by using an argument that applies to you as well and no your reasons as to why you accept doesn’t explain why it doesn’t apply to you it’s just your view as to why you should get a pass for it but there’s nothing false about that response to the question I answered therefore it does apply to you no matter how hard you try to fight against it period.
The difference is that his harms to innocents are unnecessary and mine are necessary. As I've explained In addition, he harms innocents more than I do. My statement: 

I'm actually curious: If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
is consistent with that because it talks about both his insufficient reason for killing people (just deterrence rates, which is my first problem with his position) and it includes his undue and extreme harm to innocents in killing them (which is my second problem with his position). 




#295
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
I can attack a statement without knowing the reasons for making it.
But you claimed to know his reasons when you said

And I criticize his reasons
But it’s interesting that you say that because I can criticize you for hypocrisy even if I don’t know your reasons for being a hypocrite.

The difference is that his harms to innocents are unnecessary and mine are necessary. As I've explained In addition, he harms innocents more than I do.
Irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the answer I gave.

is consistent with that because it talks about both his insufficient reason for killing people (just deterrence rates, which is my first problem with his position) and it includes his undue and extreme harm to innocents in killing them (which is my second problem with his position).
Well you didn’t just criticize him for that I’m calling you out for the thing that applies to you.

Lastly your trying to force this death penalty debate on me and I’m not trying to have it, when I gave the answer it was just to prove your hypocrisy by liking you to sadolite I didn’t ask for a long explanation as to why you have your views.
#296
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Oh right. I assumed he gave reasons. 

But it’s interesting that you say that because I can criticize you for hypocrisy even if I don’t know your reasons for being a hypocrite.
Yes, and? So maybe you criticize me for some potential hypocrisy you see, I explain why I'm not a hypocrite, and then we go from there. Nothing wrong with that. 

Also I'm not a hypocrite. 

Well you didn’t just criticize him for that I’m calling you out for the thing that applies to you.
What thing that applies to me?

#297
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
I explain why I'm not a hypocrite
You saying why you hold your views doesn’t explain why you’re not a hypocrite in regards to a specific question you asked.

What thing that applies to me?
Do you not remember the answer I gave to YOUR QUESTION? I literally liked you to sadolite.

#298
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Do you not remember the answer I gave to YOUR QUESTION? I literally liked you to sadolite.
Can you just refresh my memory? This is complicated and you clearly know what we're referring to here more than me. 

#299
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a crime you didn’t commit as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
You responded to this with your reasons why and I didn’t ask for all that in my answer, you feel the need to explain because you know you’ve been exposed but there’s no explanation that can justify that question because the comparison I made is valid period.
#300
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Don't tell me what my motivations are, especially since me, being the only person who knows what my motivations are, can say for certain that what you just said is 100% wrong. 

Yes, the same way you would accept your lifelong imprisonment for a crime you didn’t commit as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
I would accept that. But I wouldn't accept being killed for deterrence rates.