-->
@Tarik
Think is the process.
An assumption is an unsubstantiated opinion.
Why is murder actually wrong.
Posts
Total:
458
-->
@Username
I don’t even know where to begin anymore, so I guess I’ll just continue the circle you started with the hopes of you turning it into something progressive at some point, so to take this back to the lengthy response that you gave in regards to my answer, how is that responsive? Because nowhere in that answer did I ask for all of that.
-->
@zedvictor4
It’s a simple yes or no question zed, I didn’t ask you if thinking was a process or if an assumption is an unsubstantiated opinion.
-->
@Tarik
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.
Because I thought I was supposed to clarify why I accept one of these sentences but not the other. Otherwise, I literally see no reason why this comparison works against me at all. They are different sentences that justify different things for different reasons. You haven't told me where in these sentences the hypocrisy can be found, so I assumed that you meant that if one accepts one of those sentences they should also accept the other.
-->
@Username
They are different sentences that justify different things for different reasons.
Then why did I liken you to him in my answer? Because that’s where you’re similar, you’re so hellbent on talking about the differences when the differences had nothing to do with the answer itself.
-->
@Tarik
Where is the relevant similarity?
Premise 1: Things that produce a victim are wrong and should be banned.
Premise 2: Murder produces a victim.
Conclusion 1: Murder should be banned.
-->
@Username
Where is the relevant similarity?
...You both accepted a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
-->
@Tarik
...You both accepted as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes.
We accepted different things as necessary casualties for different consequences. Remember the distinction I made between deterring crimes and deterrence rates?
-->
@Username
We accepted different things as necessary casualties for different consequences.
That’s besides the point, here you go bringing the differences up again when I already told you the similarities.
-->
@Tarik
Lol I still ask what's similar? That we accept something happening to us for a reason?
-->
@Tarik
Similar statement's are not necessarily hypocritical.
-->
@Username
That we accept something as a consequence for something else?
Sure, for arguments sake let’s go with that.
-->
@Tarik
Ok just because we both accept something happening to us for the sake of something else doesn't make me a hypocrite.
-->
@Username
Ok just because we both accept something happening to us for the sake of something else doesn't make me a hypocrite.
It does if you criticize him for it.
-->
@Tarik
Why
-->
@Username
Why? What do you mean why? There’s no why in regards to these things it just is.
-->
@Tarik
Nope
-->
@Tarik
"Would you really sacrifice your life to feed your dog?"
"Yeah just like you would sacrifice some of your time to make sure your dog doesn't die, lol hypocrite"
-->
@Tarik
Fixed the counterexample.
-->
@Username
I made no argument for or against ethics. Ethics no longer exists among society and govt. What you do as an individual is the only concept of ethics that still exists.
-->
@Username
Yet you care nothing about the suffering and deaths of the victims. That's just acceptable collateral damage.
-->
@sadolite
What do you think ethics is?
-->
@sadolite
Yet you care nothing about the suffering and deaths of the victims. That's just acceptable collateral damage.
So you don't recognize the distinction between action and inaction?
-->
@sadolite
You realize that you could make this same argument for killing one innocent person to save two. "So the two people who die without an organ transplant are just collateral damage to you?"
-->
@Username
Would you really sacrifice your life to feed your dog?
Yeah just like you would sacrifice some of your time to make sure your dog doesn't die, lol hypocrite
If the one asking the question claimed to be anti sacrifice then yes that question is hypocritical. You criticized Sadolite for accepting punishment for a crime he didn’t commit when you did the same, that’s the literal example of hypocritical.
-->
@Tarik
I said "would you really accept your death", no?
-->
@Tarik
Did I claim to be anti sacrifice in all cases?
-->
@Username
And the death penalty is a punishment no?
-->
@Tarik
The fact that the person is dead is a key distinction. Imprisonment is reversible so it's acceptable to accept imprisonment for deterring crimes period. Death is not reversible so it's not acceptable to accept death for deterrence rates.