-->
@Tarik
Especially when we already have a decent mechanism for deterring crime in America.
Why is murder actually wrong.
Posts
Total:
458
-->
@Tarik
To be clear, I would not want to be falsely imprisoned and would do everything in my power to convince people I was innocent, but the state did not neccesarily do anything wrong by imprisoning me. They would have wronged me if they killed me.
-->
@Username
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.
Well that’s the only thing that makes sense because there’s no reason for you to provide an explanation for your views especially since I didn’t ask for it in my answer.
-->
@Tarik
Well that’s the only answer that makes sense because there’s no reason for you to provide an explanation for your views especially since I didn’t ask for it.
I thought that was what you wanted me to do when you because you were drawing an equivalence between sadolite's position and mine. Any logical person would have explained the difference between the two positions and the different justifications for doing different things when one person says that your logic is hypocritical.
And I'm pretty sure now that sadolite did provide a reason for killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
-->
@Tarik
Instead there's this weird thing going on where I ask a person if they'd accept X happening to them for the sake of Y and you say I'm hypocritical because I would accept a different X happening to me for a different Y.
-->
@Username
Any logical person would have explained the difference between the two positions
Obviously there’s differences if you’re in dispute, fact of the matter is you questioned a similarity.
the different justifications for doing different things when one person says that your logic is hypocritical.
The different justifications had nothing to do with the answer I gave so no it isn’t logical to respond with that and I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications the answer I gave proves your hypocrisy when I made the comparison you criticized him for.
-->
@Tarik
The harms to innocents aren't the same, the reason for the different harms to innocents aren't the same, and thus the logic of the two sentences aren't the same. So what is the same?
-->
@Username
I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications the answer I gave proves your hypocrisy when I made the comparison you criticized him for.
Do you need another look at my answer, the comparison is fitting no matter how you slice it and dice it.
-->
@Tarik
What comparison did I criticize him for?
I am literally addressing the answer you gave, no?
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.
These are the two sentences that I am saying are not comparable. They are not significantly similar in any way except for their structure. I would accept one but I would not accept the other. That is perfectly logical. I criticize him with one question, and I accept his response that you made up: I would accept my lifelong imprisonment.
-->
@Username
What comparison did I criticize him for?
I made the comparison not you, you making the comparison is shooting yourself in the foot (figuratively speaking).
I am literally addressing the answer you gave, no?
Your not by continuously asking me the same questions.
I would accept one but I would not accept the other.
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
-->
@Tarik
"Deterrence rates" and "deterring crimes" period are too different things. They were used in two different contexts and describe two different things.
-->
@Tarik
So me and sadolite still have two different reasons for two different policies.
-->
@Tarik
And on top of all that, we've already been over this. I don't remember how many times I've said that at this point.
-->
@Username
"Deterrence rates" and "deterring crimes" period are too different things.
Even if that is true, I said nothing about deterrence rates in my answer did I? So to quote your words against you Mr. Hypocrisy
Stop blowing up the debate into a million pieces.
-->
@Tarik
So then where is my hypocrisy here?
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
-->
@Username
Answer my question first.
-->
@Tarik
I said nothing about deterrence rates in my answer did I?
I believed that this:
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
Was conflating deterrence rates (sadolite's justification for killing people) and deterring crimes period (my justification for imprisoning people).
That's how I interpreted what you said.
You're still failing to establish my hypocrisy.
-->
@Username
You need to pay closer attention to the discussion because you just added another variable for no reason and get confused after doing so, leave deterring rates out of it (I don’t care if sadolite said it previously, my answer is solely in response to your question which is why I structured it the way I did which you eloquently pointed out).
-->
@Tarik
Are you seriously going to argue that you didn’t accept the “deterring crimes” argument? Because I’m sure I can find quotes from you proving otherwise, but before I find them (because I don’t want to waste my time retrieving them for nothing) will you then admit the hypocrisy to your question because I’m sure theirs many quotes verifying this.
What did this mean then? I never accepted the deterrence rates argument. I did accept the deterring crimes argument. Where's the hypocrisy?
-->
@Username
I did accept the deterring crimes argument.
Well the deterring crimes argument was in my answer, theirs the hypocrisy.
-->
@Tarik
How is it hypocrisy just because it's in your answer?
-->
@Tarik
I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications
Also, isn't this you? And isn't deterring crimes a justification?
-->
@Username
How is it hypocrisy just because it's in your answer?
...Because I was able to draw a comparison you criticized him for.
-->
@Tarik
...Because I was able to draw a comparison you criticized him for.
Just because you draw a comparison doesn't mean it's a good comparison.
And like I said:
Also, isn't this you? And isn't deterring crimes a justification?
-->
@Username
Just because you draw a comparison doesn't mean it's a good comparison.
Well I think it is otherwise I wouldn’t have drew it, apparently you don’t but whether or not you think it’s “good” has no bearing on it’s hypocritical nature.
Also, isn't this you? And isn't deterring crimes a justification?
I’m not getting into what is and isn’t justified in regards to whether or not we should have the death penalty because like I said countless times before I’m solely focused on the hypocritical question you asked sadolite, period.
-->
@Tarik
Well I think it is otherwise I wouldn’t have drew it, apparently you don’t but whether or not you think it’s good has no bearing on it’s hypocritical nature.
If you say so. I've explained multiple times now why it is not a good comparison.
I’m not getting into what is and isn’t justified in regards to this death penalty debate because like I said countless times before I’m solely focused on the hypocritical question you asked sadolite, period.
You said:
Well the deterring crimes argument was in my answer, theirs the hypocrisy.
In response to:
I did accept the deterring crimes argument.
The deterring crimes argument was a justification. Therefore, you were talking about justifications. I'm still not asking you to have a death penalty debate; I'm talking about the supposed hypocrisy in my statement and how you said that the deterring crimes justification showed my hypocrisy.
-->
@Username
If you say so. I've explained multiple times now why it is not a good comparison.
I don’t care nor did I ask for your reason, (and it still wasn’t enough to convince me otherwise just like you aren’t convinced otherwise, another comparison for you) all that matters is it has no bearing on its hypocritical nature, therefore it still stands, also I don’t expect you to think it’s good because admitting that would be shooting your self in the foot (figuratively speaking).
The deterring crimes argument was a justification.
Yes but the context in which I said
I didn’t say you were hypocritical for your justifications
That was in regards to the “justifications” where you claimed difference, I’m claiming hypocrisy from the similarity I referenced in my answer.
-->
@Tarik
I don’t care nor did I ask for your reason
This is literally the "someone makes a point and the other person says "Didn't ask"" meme. You keep alluding to an un-established hypocrisy.
I’m claiming hypocrisy from the similarity I referenced in my answer.
What similarity?
Do you want to just call it here? You've stopped trying to convince me and are instead satisfied with not being convinced. I don't know what I can do and I frankly don't have time to do any more to try to convince you because I've already put it all on the table. Anyone who has read this far (no one) can give us their input or just form an opinion on whether I am a hypocrite or not. How about that? Do either of us need to do this anymore? We're going in circles.
-->
@Username
You keep alluding to an un-established hypocrisy.
Your starting a circle by saying the same tired arguments over and over again is that your only play here?
What similarity?
How many times you have to ask me this same question, instead of being so gung-ho about responding how about you take the time to read what I’m actually telling you.
We're going in circles.
If we’re going in circles it’s your fault, you could’ve easily just accepted my answer at face value instead you added the extra variables and made things complicated.
-->
@Tarik
Your starting a circle by saying the same tired arguments over and over again is that your only play here?
Not my play. I'm trying to understand. And you just keep saying stuff about me. For the record, I feel the same about you that you say about me. But I am actually trying to understand and you are just insisting on things.
How many times you have to ask me this same question, instead of being so gung-ho about responding how about you take the time to read what I’m actually telling you.
I mean you're not even arguing at this point. You're just saying stuff. There's a thousand things you've said; what do you want me to read?
If we’re going in circles it’s your fault, you could’ve easily just accepted my answer at face value instead you added the extra variables and made things complicated.
Just saying stuff. All unwarranted. Why would I just say "yeah I'm a hypocrite" when I think I'm a hypocrite?
What extra variables did I add? Can you just lay out again the hypocrisy of my statement? All in one. It would help because you've given tidbits or something here and there. I've always responded to them and disputed the truth of them w/ reasoning. Lay out your claim, your justifications for your claim, etc.
For someone who is getting nowhere in this conversation you are extremely insistent about continuing it.
Good night.