|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 497 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: You are confusing the abstract with the actual. That is clearly the probabalistic outcome, but that does not mean the ideal of universal heterosexuality is ever actual. You must address the actual, not the ideal. In actuality, homsexuality happens, and is as "natural" as anything else that happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Pretty much. The caveat is that its necessarily a broad term and so you do encounter "socially liberal conservatives" and so forth. But if someone is identified as right wing, or self-identifies, its a pretty certain bet that they will back the captains of industry against the mere masses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I understand that Bush signed over 120 death warrants. Given what we now know about his loose relationship to evidence, and propensity for seeing what he wants to see in the material, it seems a screaming certainty tbat some of those people were innocent, or perhaps should have had the penalty commuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well, to use an appropriate metaphor, they can go hang. This position merely validates the witch-hunt, dumping evidence and due process in favour of instant reaction and thus probably prejudice. This remains anticipatory punishment prior to the commission of an offence, and I am perfectly entitled to reject it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Are we not the richest society that ever lived? Do we not produce more food every year than our species can consume? Do we not waste vast quantitites of wealth and productive power on mere entertinament, mere travel, mere toys? What price human life for the richest human beings who have ever walked the earth? You need to get your moral priorities right. This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-11-2005 05:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Sorry, its still nonsense. With huge billion-upon-billion turnover in advertising alone, it is absurd to say "we cannot afford it". Of course you could afford it, if you wanted to. You have to decide whether you value human life or not.
quote: Except, that this is the state acting on our behalf, and therefore we have a much greater duty of care to those against whom we pass judgement. Better that 10 innocent men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned, they used to say. Also, most of these are straw men: the state is unlikely to spend on malnutrition of it is worried about the "moral hazard" of capitalist charity. Similarly, health-care reserach: if that is to be driven by private investment, then that is also not an appropriate spending option for the governmental costs incurred by inarceration.
quote: Fine, but when using a rock as heavy and dangerous as the state, more than due, but perhaps zealous, oversight should be warranted. Just because it is not 100% does not mean we must abandon our efforts. Furthermore, appealing to the prospect that we might release someone who is guilty who "goes on to kill again" is blackmail. That too is governed by due process - if for example they were released on a technicality, then thats too bad. To incarcerate, or worse, kill, a person without a technically delimited and strictly administered process is to essentially punish on the basis of hearsay. And incidentally, this relates directly to those held without evidence, trial or charge in US and UK detention centres. In Belmarsh, there are prisoners that cannot be tried based on the formal burden of proof. Then, I say, they should not be held, should they? The state is admitting that it has NOT got proof that these people are as dangerous as they claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: So, suspicion and hearsay after all. If the person is clinically dirsordered, and a danger to the public, then they can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act (in the UK). There is no need to execute.
quote: The term "OK" calls for a moral judgement I think is innapropriate. It is understandable, and predictable, that killings will occur under such circumstances.
quote: Simple - its not justified because murder is wrong. Especially, as in this case, avoidable judicial murder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes of course. Your very expectation that people would NOT object indicates prcesiley the vengeance-driven mob mentality I think is dangerous.
quote: They deserve to live. Just think, the whole incident would have been avoidable if not for your property rights legislation.
quote: Thats only partially relevant - if knowing who did it was important, then we would be free to execute jaywalkers. The question is whether we support the killing of citizens by the state. Thats is all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I didn't have much to say about the alleged "heavy-handedness" of the state - the state is no more heavy-handed than any large, tiered organisation, such as corporations. The point is that especially the US state is unlikely to use any such savings on actual human welfare, so it is a false dichotomy.
quote: That goes without saying - that has always been the case in any formal judicial process. But that is the price you pay for justice, rather than revenge. Please bear in mind that police forces and universal public justice are a new phenomenon; the very first formal police agencies only began to appear in the mid-18th Century. In all history prior to that, justice was either private or in the direct judgement of the highest fora of the state. And since then, it has been concerned about potential excesses of the state, and hence the precuationary principle of only applying judicial sanction where a case is determined 'beyond reasonable doubt' developed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Except, as you well know, I do not hold that position. Please address the points I raise, not straw men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Whoop do doo, more sophistry. You asked for a reason, you got one, not an essay. Furthermore, I can point to the fact that murder is illogical in a social organism, is dangerous in principle to a social organism, and is inherently traumatic and psychologically disturbing in humans. Make your case or don't; assumptions do not help your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
It was and remains sophistry.
quote: Irrelevant. Its still not logical to do so - your breeding opportunities and the variation of the species is thereby constrained. It is illogical in principle for a social organism to legitimise the killing of its members within its own society, certainly for a cooperative species such as ours. And of course, killing is observably psychologically traumatic, indicating that it is a learned behaviour and one in which we generally do not indulge by choice.
quote: Thats because you purposefully blur the specific and the general case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: One scenario has one more dead body than the other. You are appealing to moralism. You should know by know I don't consider that compelling as an argument. If our population used to be X, and is now X-1, how does it help to go to X-2?
quote: I don't need to, because your position is an absolute. All I need is a contradiction. What you fail to consider, is that a person who arrogates to themselves the right to kill the proven killers thereby becomes a proven killer.
quote: Perhaps. But why do I have killers killing? Once again you imply a ridiculous scenario, as if I oppose people fighting in their own defence. That is not at all the same issue as establishing in principle the legitimacy of homicide as a tool of public policy; that must necessarily produce killers.
quote: You are falsely transposing answers given in the abstract to local specifics that have their own criterion. I'm not sure what "my population" has to do with anything either. I consider it arrant fantasy to demand passivity from people under oppression. But merely because violence happens does not mean I have to enshrine it in a social order and call it good. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-12-2005 09:12 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Earth. You?
quote: Correct in 3 senses. First, property rights are the alienation of a commodity from common to exclusive ownership and is thus theft. Second, property rights do cause conflicts both directly and indrectly. Third, property rights underly the treatment of people as things, and thus produces rape. For humans to be free, private property must be abolished.
quote: Nonsense; its a reductio ad absurdam. The identification of guilt is not the deciding factort in the death penalty. Even if Holmes was able to devise a 100% perfect system that never produced a miscarriage of justice, the death penalty would STILL be judicial murder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Specifically, I am a communist, and you are quite wrong: communism worked with relentless success for almost all of human history. Its the very recent development of heirarchical, property-owning societies that is contrary to human nature. As such, it is only a temporary aberration, and a communist mode of production will return.
quote: Sure. But personal posessions are most sertainly NOT equivalent to private property at all. Private property is a specific system of absentee ownership.
quote: Er no, I deconstructed your argument and thus I win the point.
quote: Its the deliberate killing of another, by someone who has power over them, and who is not themselves in danger. It's murder, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024