-->
@Username
I said nothing about deterrence rates or reversible in my answer.
Why is murder actually wrong.
Posts
Total:
458
-->
@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.
Here's your answer, for clarification purposes.
And that's irrelevant even if it's true. All that matters is that I criticized his position because of circumstances and actions that were importantly different from my position. That's enough to prove that I'm being consistent.
-->
@Username
And that's irrelevant even if it's true. All that matters is that I criticized his position because of circumstances and actions that were importantly different from my position. That's enough to prove that I'm being consistent.
I said this? Are you sure?
-->
@Tarik
No?
-->
@Tarik
That was my argument.
-->
@Username
And that's irrelevant even if it's true.
It’s relevant in regards to hypocrisy because you both accepted punishment for crimes you didn’t commit, and don’t waste your time bothering to tell me the differences because that’s irrelevant in regards to why I called you a hypocrite.
-->
@Tarik
That's true. In your example, we did both "accept" punishment for crimes we didn't commit. Like I said though, my qualm with sadolite is not that he accepted punishment period. It is the type of punishment he advocates for and the reasons behind it.
Tarik, there is nothing to be found here. I don't understand why you're continuing this conversation unless you're very intent on winning it.
-->
@Username
Like I said though, my qualm with sadolite is not that he accepted punishment period.
But you didn’t say that, and if you did it came after the fact (when I called you out for hypocrisy).
-->
@Tarik
What I'm criticizing him for is accepting the death penalty for crime deterrence rates. Imposing the death penalty and doing it only to increase some deterrence rate are the two things I have consistently argued against in this whole conversation.
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?
The fact that the person is getting arrested for a crime they didn't commit is meant to point out the irreversibility of the death penalty.
-->
@Username
What I'm criticizing him for is accepting the death penalty for crime deterrence rates.
Where in the question/answer did it say that?
The fact that the person is getting arrested for a crime they didn't commit is meant to point out the irreversibility of the death penalty.
Irreversibility had nothing to do with the question/answer.
-->
@Tarik
Why does it matter whether or not you said it in your example? That was the intent and point of my first sentence to sadolite: to expose something that was unjust about the policy imposed in his world, and the insufficient reason for doing it. Since the policy and the reason are both importantly different different in my world than his, and criticizing his policy and reason are the whole point of the sentence, there's nothing to criticize in my logic. Nothing that I can see at all.
You criticized Sadolite for accepting punishment for a crime he didn’t commit when you did the same
But my sentence is not about the fact that he accepted a punishment despite being innocent. That's fine, and not relevant. Like you say we both do that. It's not what I was criticizing him for either, it was just in my initial sentence to make the point about the death penalty not being reversible, I think. It's about which punishment he accepted in your example and why.
Where in the question/answer did it say that?
would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
Irreversibility had nothing to do with the question/answer.
The point of my question: He is being killed for an insufficient reason, which is just obviously wrong. Part of the reason it's wrong is that if he is innocent (which I say that he is in the question), when he dies he'll be dead for good; no one will be able to help him if evidence ever comes out that he is innocent. The state would be precluding the possibility of the innocence of an individual for deterrence rates. I clarify this to be a problem with the death penalty earlier on in the conversation:
A. If you kill every rapist, murderer, and pedophile then what if some of the rapists, murderers, and pedophiles you kill are not actually rapists, murderers, and pedophiles?
I don't know exactly what part of my argument I was trying to make the most clear when I make my argument (when you make a statement that implies multiple things you usually don't know which particular thing(s) you were trying to imply when you started making the statement), but I'm pretty sure reversibility was part of what I was trying to say initially. It is a large part (possibly even the largest part) of what is wrong with the killing in the question and the unjust killing is the point of my question.
You may be just intentionally prolonging this at this point. Unless you can come up with a new reason why I'm a hypocrite or new logical arguments from your previous reasons, I'll just copy the answers I already gave you.
-->
@Tarik
If you go to the page where we started talking about this you can see that reversibility was possibly the main point of what I was saying at the time. Also the insufficient reason for the harsher punishment, of course. I oppose sadolite's actions for other reasons, too.
I also think there is something intrinsically silly here about me being interrogated on one statement that is obviously irrelevant to my larger criticism of sadolite's position which you seemingly are not challenging as hypocritical. If you wanted I could literally concede that my sentence was hypocritical (even though I think it isn't), just rephrase my criticisms of sadolite's view and express almost the same thing. Virtually nothing would change since you know my positions which haven't changed and how they apply to sadolite's which also haven't changed.
-->
@Username
(even though I think it isn't)
Why? I literally told you a bunch of times why it is.
-->
@Tarik
Just sent you messages explaining why it isn't which contained new information and reasons.... But, you know, if you say it is.
-->
@Username
Just sent you messages explaining why it isn't
No you didn’t, all you did was go on this long meaningless rant about your intentions (which can’t be proven by the way) and changed the subject to previous things that were said between you and sadolite (which had nothing to do with my criticism of you).
This has devolved in to a 2-on-none conversation. Get a room.
-->
@fauxlaw
Get a room.
How about we get a thread instead (oh wait we did, this one).
-->
@Tarik
Intentions can't be proven. We can never understand the intentions of anyone when they say something, so we have to use a process of inductive reasoning to figure out what it most likely was. Nonetheless, the BoP is on you to prove my statement to be hypocritical, since you're making the positive claim, no?
and changed the subject about previous things that were said between you and sadolite (which had nothing to do with my hypocritical take on you).
They were supposed to contextualize what I said and show that I was clearly talking about reversibility in my initial statement.
I also think there is something intrinsically silly here about me being interrogated on one statement that is obviously irrelevant to my larger criticism of sadolite's position which you seemingly are not challenging as hypocritical. If you wanted I could literally concede that my sentence was hypocritical (even though I think it isn't), just rephrase my criticisms of sadolite's view and express almost the same thing. Virtually nothing would change since you know my positions which haven't changed and how they apply to sadolite's which also haven't changed.
Address this.
-->
@Username
so we have to use a process of inductive reasoning to figure out what it most likely was.
I don’t care what it most likely was, I only took issue with a specific line of questioning you had, you bringing up all this extra stuff is irrelevant.
Nonetheless, the BoP is on you to prove my statement to be hypocritical, since you're making the positive claim, no?
Which I did a bunch of times already (you even acknowledged my proof) so don’t act brand new now.
They were supposed to contextualize what I said and show that I was clearly talking about reversibility in my initial statement.
Even if that is true, in the answer I gave reversibility wasn’t an option just like with yours and the death penalty because in my answer you spent the REST OF YOUR LIFE in jail.
Address this.
I didn’t address it the first time for the exact reason you mentioned in that quote
which you seemingly are not challenging as hypocritical
And what I am challenging is the only thing of relevance in this discussion.
-->
@Tarik
Even if that is true in the answer I gave reversibility wasn’t an option just like with yours death penalty because in my answer you spent the rest of your life in jail.
You asked where reversibility was in the question/answer. I gave you that. I don't care whether it was in your answer or not. Analyze the actual intent and logic of my sentence and contrast it with the intent and logic of your sentence and you will see that they're different.
Why is it important to challenge this one sentence?
-->
@Tarik
They're different in ways that make it impossible to say that one sentence is hypocritical when compared to the other. Everything important is different about them. That's what you're not understanding.
-->
@Username
I gave you that.
No, I literally have both the question and answer and nowhere in either one of those does it say anything about reversibility.
I don't care whether it was in your answer or not.
Then don’t lie about reversibility being in the answer because it wasn’t, and the answer is significant considering it exposes the hypocrisy you relentlessly demand.
Analyze the actual intent and logic of my sentence and contrast it with the intent and logic of your sentence and you will see that they're different.
Like I said intentions can’t be proven, so it’s a futile effort.
Why is it important to challenge this one sentence?
You mean the question? I’m sure you can take a guess (I’ve said it many times already).
They're different in ways that make it impossible to say that one sentence is hypocritical when compared to the other.
Do you want me to just copy and paste when I previously refuted this argument?
-->
@Tarik
Reversibility is not a word in the sentence but it is a key part of the difference between my logic as employed in that sentence and sadolite's logic. The logic of our two sentences is where you believe the hypocrisy is so this is pertinent to you. Reversibility can also obviously be inferred to be why I made the sentence in the first place. Use context clues like they taught you in school. You cannot absolutely know why anyone says anything, so you might as well try to figure it out, especially when it's so clear here and so important to my criticism of sadolite.
Do you want me to just copy and paste when I previously refuted this argument?
Go ahead.
You mean the question? I’m sure you can take a guess (I’ve said it many times already).
Because it's hypocritical?
But if my position and criticism of his are not hypocritical, then why dwell on one sentence that you think is when we all know my stance and criticisms of sadolite's stance?
Will stop responding to things I've already talked about.
-->
@Username
Reversibility is not a word in the sentence but it is a key part of the difference between my logic as employed in that sentence and sadolite's logic.
Do you want me to just copy and paste when I previously refuted this reversibility argument?
Go ahead.
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.
But if my position and criticism of his are not hypocritical
But it is.
Will stop responding to things I've already talked about.
Considering everything I responded to we covered already I guess if you’re keeping your word on that you wouldn’t be responding at all.
-->
@Tarik
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
Likening me to him in my answer doesn't do anything and doesn't seem to affect the reversibility argument. You're just responding to my question of "Would you really have A happen to you for the sake of B?" with "Yes, just like you would have X happen to you for the sake of Y".
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
Like I said, I am not anti-sacrifice in all cases.
You're going to say that the death penalty is a punishment too, but the sacrifice of your life is also a sacrifice so the analogy to the dog sentences still works. I'm going to point out that the likening doesn't matter if the sentences cannot be likened and list reasons why (including reversibility), and you're going to say that you didn't say that in your comparison. I am going to say who cares because the sentences are the two thing you're comparing and you've failed to show the part of the sentence that is hypocritical. You'll say that since we both accept punishments for deterring crimes, but I criticize him for accepting a certain punishment for deterring a vague amount of crime, and therefore I'm a hypocrite. I'm going to tell you that there's nothing inherently hypocritical about two people accepting punishments for deterring crimes and one person criticizing the other person for the type of punishment and the magnitude of deterrence that they accept. You may insist that it is. I will ask you why. You may say that "it just is" and I will again try to explain why its not. I will give you the dog example again and the cycle will repeat. It will happen over and over unless you bring up something else.
Alright, Tarik. I think I have had all the fun I can have at this point. Unless you bring up an original point (in which case I will keep responding) I am done arguing. I will not block you, but I have definitely learned not to engage with you in other, future arguments and will only do so briefly if you say anything to me. Thanks for helping me get two gold medals on this site.
-->
@Username
doesn't seem to affect the reversibility argument.
That’s because that has nothing to do with my criticism of you.
Like I said, I am not anti-sacrifice in all cases.
In all cases is what I meant when I initially said anti-sacrifice.
who cares
Well if that’s gonna be your attitude then no wonder why you can’t see the truth.
I'm going to tell you that there's nothing inherently hypocritical about two people accepting punishments for deterring crimes and one person criticizing the other person for the type of punishment and the magnitude of deterrence that they accept.
Why is the type of punishment relevant? Especially since in my answer I said you spend THE REST OF YOUR LIFE in prison, also magnitude of deterrence wasn’t brought up in either question or answer (although it is my belief that the deterrence would be much higher under the penalty) so don’t bring it up now.
Thanks for helping me get two gold medals on this site.
It’s what I do, you’re welcome.
-->
@Tarik
Oh, I see. "Lifelong imprisonment". I understand how you're using that. Sorry about that. It still doesn't matter, because the question I asked to him presumes that if he were not killed he may or may not spend life in prison. When someone is killed, you don't know if they would have spent life in prison or not, which is what I imply in my question to be what's wrong with the death penalty. But you don't take into account the context clues that explain that because we can never understand anyone's motive for saying anything . If you do end up spending life in prison, there's not necessarily any injustice done.
Magnitude of deterrence has been a differentiating factor between the two sentences this whole time lol. That's why I kept bringing up that my question and your response involve two different punishments happening for two different reasons (deterrence rates and deterring crimes period). I even explained the distinction between those two things.
I still would accept lifelong imprisonment for deterring crimes period.
I still would not accept death for deterrence rates.
Will now hibernate again until another original point is brought up.
-->
@Username
he may or may not spend life in prison
That literally means nothing.
When someone is killed, you don't know if they would have spent life in prison or not
So? If someone spends the rest of there life in prison you don’t know what there life would be like if they had there freedom, what’s your point?
If you do end up spending life in prison, there's not necessarily any injustice done.
There is if you’re in there for a crime you didn’t commit.
happening for two different reasons
No, I said deterring crimes in my answer just like you did with yours.
-->
@Tarik
The point is that being killed for a crime if you're innocent is typically unjust because you could be innocent. It's like: "yeah, evidence might come out later that shows that you didn't do the crime, but fuck you". If evidence comes out later, it doesn't matter because your dead. That's why I asked sadolite if he would really accept being killed as an innocent. And so yeah, it does mean something that if he wasn't killed, he may not or may not have spent life in prison. Because the state prevented him from ever being able to live a normal life again by killing him.
If the state imprisons you for a crime, they're leaving the possibility that you're innocent open. If you're imprisoned for the rest of your life, your example is already different in a key way because now we know whether evidence came out that sufficiently suggested your innocence or not during your life (corruption or lack of info nonwithstanding). My question is based on the possibility that sadolite may be found innocent later if he isn't killed, which is why it's so bad that he's killed. In a comparable situation, where sadolite gets imprisoned for life but evidence may or may not come out of his innocence (which is how it actually works in reality), it's usually better to be in prison than dead. The state is not wronging you necessarily by falsely imprisoning you in an isolated circumstance. The state usually can never know for certain whether you're innocent or not, so they have to use the evidence available to determine your guilt. If they get some things wrong, that's unfortunate, but what were they supposed to do?
Don't say "yeah yeah but my example though we're not doing a death penalty debate" because I asked him the question to make a point about reversibility. I know in both the question and the answer it's irreversible, but that's because your answer is not as equivalent to my question as it should be for a good comparison like I explained in the previous paragraph.
And no the "deterring crimes" in my question and your answer are clearly different things, but we've already been over that so I won't go over it again.
-->
@Username
Because the state prevented him from ever being able to live a normal life again by killing him.
...And? In my answer the state prevented you from ever being able to live a normal life again by giving you a life sentence, sure you can argue the possibility of being released but that possibility means nothing if it doesn’t happen and in my answer it doesn’t.
My question is based on the possibility that sadolite may be found innocent later if he isn't killed
Well maybe you should’ve said that, it’s easy to say that now AFTER I called you out for hypocrisy, since your adding all these unnecessary variables why not mention the murders that occur in prison? Although it’s not sanctioned by the state like the death penalty it still leaves the long term effect the penalty does, and what about the people that are on death row for long periods of time? Well in that case those possibilities that you’re so keen on are there.
it's usually better to be in prison than dead.
How do you know that? Have you ever been to prison or died?
If they get some things wrong, that's unfortunate, but what were they supposed to do?
Not get it wrong.
I asked him the question to make a point about reversibility.
Judging by that question alone there’s no proof of that.
I know in both the question and the answer it's irreversible, but that's because your answer is not as equivalent to my question
That makes no sense, how are you going to argue a similarity between your question and my answer and in the same breath say it’s not equivalent?
And no the "deterring crimes" in my question and your answer are clearly for different things, but we've already been over that so I won't go over it again.
No “deterring crimes” is simply just that and even if I entertained that idea what “different things” are you alluding to? I thought in your question sadolite got killed for murder and in my answer you spent life in prison for murder, so what’s the common denominator there? And if your not going to go over it again then what’s the point of saying this?