|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
No that would not be enough. It could be a frame. Next!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No the cops.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: The problem with your scenario is that you presented it in God Mode, as it were, making declaritive statements about What Happened. the problem is that we will never have that information in real life. What we will have is:- an arresting officers report - the videotape - witness statements - the confession ... all of which can be faked. And it is very very far indeed from reality to start talking about the police as behaving "inexplicably" in this manner. They are not models of virtue; they are people like everyone else. And further, given what is apparently a culture of "we can do no wrong" among the police, I certainly do not regard them as trustworthy.
quote: Thats the easy part. Don't you remember Gary Powers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Then you are apparently much more credulous than I expected.
quote: You will of course recall I do not think cops should be armed, so this is somewhat less of an issue as far as I am concerned. Secondly, how plausible YOU think such a frame is is irrelevant - its exactly that sort of lazy assumption, that "oh they wouldn't have", that causes errors to be made. YOU are saying it is going to be 100% foolproof. So you have to show how it will deal with even the outliers, not merely the common case.
quote: That is not logical. Schrafinators position is quite clear: its BECUASE 100% certainty cannot be guaranteed that she opposes the death penalty, becuase it is irrevocable. Her position is perfectly consistent. And I *do* reject law ernforcement. So, next!
quote: God you must have a degree in missing the point. I don;t thihnk I've ever read a post of yours in which you simply argued your point without trying to twist the other sides case. The POINT was that Gary Powers was brainwashed. Thus, even a confession can be false. So EVEN if you had all your chosen evidence, AND a signed confession, the alleged perpetrator may still be innocent. The fact of a confession is not conclusive.
quote: In fact, no. Because that kind of evidnce would be quite easy to fake these days, wouldn't it? Bluescreen and motion capture, and bobs your uncle.
quote: No, it is not. YOU are the one claiming a 100% perfect system - a fact I have to say, simply on the basis of my statistics background, is wholly implausible. So YOU have to show how your system is abs90lutely immune to all perversion whatsover, by any force or factiopn no matter how powerful and organised. Otherwise, you will have to concede to us that your system can only be probabalistic, regardless of how many safeguards you implement. And then we can rightly say: we choose not to kill, in case we make a mistake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: A MYTH? Are you now so delusional you deny the clear evidecne that this has happened?
quote: There is no fallacy except your attribution of blame to a process. Blame is totally irrelevant and utterly unimportant to the issue. Merely recognising the propensity of a specific process to fail is a good enough basis to say, OK, we will not make irrevocable decisions on that basis. Geez, we can't even build a machine that will put 3xactly 100 mils of fluid in a jar. Its statistically iompossible, all we can do is MANAGE the margin of error. I regard the proposition that we can build an infallible judical system as outright lunacy. That is all I am dealing with here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Except that, unless we have a 100% foolproof system, it WILL happen. that is not a myth.
quote: Unfortunately for you, we DO have a factual and objective reason for opposing the death penalty: unless we have a 100% reliable system, mistakes will inevitably be made and innocent people will die. You are now reduced to accusing me of intellectual cowardice simply becuase you cannot answer the point. That does not enhance your credibility at all; you are persistently failing to engage with the criticism, and instead trying to dismiss it by impugning my person.
quote: It most certainly IS a statisticial problem. And you are correct to say it is not analogous to building a machine: building a machine is EASIER because all its parts are predictable and fixed, unlike any human social system.
quote: No that is nonsense again; in fact it reminds me of your dishonest arguments that cknowledging the existance of sexist discrimination is to propagate sexism. The FACT of the matter is that, rightly or wrongly, a sizable percentage of the American public believe the video of the moon landings was faked. The fact that there is video evidence is not in itself automatically conclusive - you may recall Trotsky being airbrushed out of photo's, for example. And that is why a 100% system is impossible. Its a simple enough point, really. You are the one claiming that a 100% perfect system is possible for the death penalty. We are all awaiting your proposal to see what it actually is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, YOUR myth. I am not seduced by such idealisms.
quote: The degree of skepticism is prportional to the gravity of the proposal. You are proposing taking human life. My position has been made abundantly clear to you: the death sentence will not be supported BECAUSE it is ireevocable; the only possible counter you have to that position is to propose a 100% perfect system. Seeing as you cannot propose such a system, as you admit, I will continue to reject the death penalty.
quote: No, I don't recognise that necessarily. I studied statistics purely as a business concern; 100% certainty is not achievable. I do not need to go any further than that, nor indulge any diversions into ID.
quote: Totally false - materials behave in much more predictable ways. And I never referred to extraneous forces or breakdowns.
quote: No.
quote: Baloney. You failed to show how it could be done, and the weaknesses were pointed out to you. Spare me the persecution complex. In fact, it was worse than that, becuase you seem to have assumed we had never considered your proposals before. I think thats unlikely in the others, and is certainly the case in my argument. Nothing you proposed was new, or surprising, to my existing view that the death penalty should not be used. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-13-2005 09:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
You take the cake, Brenna. Seeing as you are so disgusted with us mere humans, why don't you fuck off somewhere else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well there was CERTAINLY no reason for an attack on ordinary jurors other than outright snobberry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Right. Most people seek to avouid the disruption of jury duty, it is not a coliseum spectacle. You are making wholly baseless assumptions about "the commoners" like any good aristo. Having done jury duty myself, it was one of the most human and indeed even reassuring experiences I've ever had. I had not though a random sampling of the pupulation could produce as high a degree of diuscussion as we did - and I barely got a word in edgewise. Juries remain the bulwark of the free against the self-righteous and self-important elitists we have to suffer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Lao Tsu said, "Like sharp fish, the weapons of the state should be kept beneath the surface."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024