User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 161

  1. #141
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan.of.Devin View Post
    Vengeance is a primitive, savage, and stupid (albeit, very human) desire that has no place in the justice system of any civilized society...
    On the contrary, feelings of anger and vengeance against foes is perfectly healthy when balanced with love and forgiveness for friends. It's strengthens society by providing the motivation to prevent evil from flourishing.
    Killing people when it's not absolutely needed isn't good and doesn't solve problems.
    Wasting scarce resources on dangerous, anti-social liabilities is irrational

    If you are in favor of it to spite offenders, you have issues, quite frankly.
    If you are in favor of it because you think it's practical, I think that you're misguided, and excluding that, I would like to suggest that the ends still don't justify the means.
    Strongly proclaiming your personal biases will do nothing to sway those whose view differ from yours. You need to present actual arguments.

  2. #142
    Senior Member Fan.of.Devin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INT-
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    To be honest the people who discount revenge or vengence so easily cant possibly have experienced much in the way of crime themselves, wanting satisfaction and security are pretty basic human needs.
    Yes, Lark... The people who truly lack compassion in this equation must be the ones who don't want to see prisoners killed (or as you asserted in a previous threads, additionally beaten and raped).
    Truly brilliant logic, as always.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The rebalancing of the whole legal system in which the needs of the criminals to be provided with a caring environment in which they might possibly develop to a point at which they will abandon criminality I think has taken no account of the needs of the lawful and peaceful, it is they that really matter and are productive and good people.

    ...

    Why dont you admit that you want all expenses paid trips to Disney Land for rapists and child murderers?
    Though I personally favor restorative justice platforms, both because I consider it ethically correct and I believe it leads to better outcomes for everyone involved (victims, offenders, society), there are some people who do simply and unarguably belong behind bars for the rest of their lives. I'm not arguing against this fact, just because I don't think anyone should be killed.
    It's not like a life sentence is some fun adventure, even if you're spared of violence and sexual assault (which, you likely won't be).

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    For the tenth damn time, this isn't about vengeance; it's a matter of utility. Why should society keep alive a person who is a danger to that same society?
    It is neither the right nor responsibility of either society or the penal system to decide who lives and who dies; you are severely misguided... It it not a matter of "keeping anyone alive" (idiotic wording that somehow implies killing them to begin with is somehow the necessary default) or not, it is a matter of keeping them separated from society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Wasting scarce resources on dangerous, anti-social liabilities is irrational
    There are no "scarce resources" being wasted, as I already very clearly spelled out in previous posts.
    I can't make it any simpler, the money involved is peanuts.

    Using the above logic, why do you think that there even exists both a death penalty and a life in prison without parole sentence?
    If somebody is to spend their life in prison, regardless of what crime they committed to get there, then they might as well be killed; do you stand behind this statement?
    Even if their offense was non-violent in nature?

    If you're really in such a fervor to save money, go look under your fucking couch cushions, or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Strongly proclaiming your personal biases will do nothing to sway those whose view differ from yours. You need to present actual arguments.
    Which is precisely why I remain unswayed myself.
    All I hear and have ever heard is "murderers deserve to die" rhetoric, and some fumbling implications that taxpayer money is somehow being wasted in grand orders to keep a practically immeasurably small subset of the prison population alive... Never any real argument to the alleged "practicality" of the death penalty.

    Speaking of, here's another practical argument in opposition of the death penalty that I forgot to include in my previous posts, and one that doesn't involve the financial aspect of the situation...

    Mass murders, serial killers, the extremely violent, etc... are actually a fairly rare breed of folks, and they present an interesting opportunity for psychological study.
    Criminal psychologists agree that keeping them around for long term observation and evaluation is a potentially extremely important and unmatched tool for the prevention and recognition (perhaps even rehabilitation) of possible future offenders.
    INTP 4w5 SX/SP
    Tritype 4/5/8

  3. #143
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan.of.Devin View Post
    There are no "scarce resources" being wasted, as I already very clearly spelled out in previous posts.
    There isn't? Then why are so many struggling just to acquire the basic necessities of life? Why is something as basic as food and health care not free for all?
    Using the above logic, why do you think that there even exists both a death penalty and a life in prison without parole sentence?
    If somebody is to spend their life in prison, regardless of what crime they committed to get there, then they might as well be killed; do you stand behind this statement?
    Even if their offense was non-violent in nature?
    I'm not sure I understand your point. The punishment must be proportionate to the offense. It cannot be arbitrary. Fairness is the basis for social cooperation.

    ll I hear and have ever heard is "murderers deserve to die" rhetoric, and some fumbling implications that taxpayer money is somehow being wasted in grand orders to keep a practically immeasurably small subset of the prison population alive... Never any real argument to the alleged "practicality" of the death penalty.
    Many rational arguments has been presented. You simply chose to argue from the perspective of your own personal feelings instead. You're entitled to feel what you do, but if everyone else did the same, there would be no basis for a common understanding.

    I don't argue from the perspective that sadistic killers deserve to die. My argument is that, because he so substantially failed to live up to the obligations of the social contract, he is no longer entitled to any of it's protections. Others are free to kill him if they wish. It's only fair.

    Mass murders, serial killers, the extremely violent, etc... are actually a fairly rare breed of folks, and they present an interesting opportunity for psychological study.
    Criminal psychologists agree that keeping them around for long term observation and evaluation is a potentially extremely important and unmatched tool for the prevention and recognition (perhaps even rehabilitation) of possible future offenders.
    Rehabilitating sadistic socialpathic murderers is totally unnecessary if we simply euthanize them. They serve a better utility as pet food.

  4. #144
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Note - If you can't see the benefits of simply shooting someone instead of imprisoning them without possibility of parole for years and years then you aren't capable of discussing the idea because you can't see the whole picture. The argument that you can't kill someone cause you might have it wrong doesn't hold water if you're prepared to just shoot anyone who breaches your front door without permission and enthusiastically wanting people to be locked up for life or have certain things done to them (as with rape cases) is just the human nature trying to rationalise itself as a nice person.

    Logically, shooting someone is a fair enough conclusion to reach. Probably not the optimum but likely no worse than the current solution which in many cases is to simply store the problem because we're not sure what to do with it right now.

    Of course, as with any law or rule which applies to people, there would be exceptions. Black and white application of any rule is most likely wrong in both a moral sense and from a point of view of competency.

    As for "who are you to decide who lives and who dies", the answer is simple. A living, breathing, THINKING, machine of intelligence. Free will means you are free to deem someone not worthy of living and by not making that decision, guess what... they live. So you are always making the decision. In other words "who are you to do nothing and let these people continue on their path?".
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #145
    Senior Member dga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    If you're arguing against the death penalty on the basis of the small possibility that the person in question can go on to do good things, why aren't you also arguing against jail? After all, a serial rapists could become a genius mathematician if he wasn't put in prison.
    uh, prisoners have earned degrees while it is a bit difficult to do much when dead

  6. #146
    Senior Member Perch420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    NiTi
    Enneagram
    5w1
    Posts
    381

    Default

    What about solitary confinement? If a prisoner is attacking other prisoners of prison staff, they are put on lockdown to prevent them from harming others. Being in solitary confinement removes your right to go to the library and other things like that, I would assume. Is putting someone there therefore immoral? After all, it is possible they might invent cold fusion with library access. The "what if" argument is stupid because all human behavior is based around probability. The probability of someone who raped a child or something contributing to society after the fact is very small. Kill him and be done with it, and give the money that would have been used to fund his life in jail to people who really need it.
    “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” - G. K. Chesterton

  7. #147
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    I don't see anything wrong with it and while I do think death for a case of assault is a bit severe, these females have an extensive history of violence. That's not to say I want them to be executed, but to say if they were executed it wouldn't bother me. With that being said, I believe I have an even better idea than the death penalty; we give violent offenders the choice of either death or exile and if they choose exile, they will be removed from the country.
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  8. #148
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan.of.Devin View Post
    Yes, Lark... The people who truly lack compassion in this equation must be the ones who don't want to see prisoners killed (or as you asserted in a previous threads, additionally beaten and raped).
    Truly brilliant logic, as always.
    You know what sucks? When you're an evil son of a bitch and you get your just desserts, that's what sucks?

    That's what you appear to be saying there.

  9. #149
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    To be honest the people who discount revenge or vengence so easily cant possibly have experienced much in the way of crime themselves, wanting satisfaction and security are pretty basic human needs.

    The positions of victims or kin is one in which they are unlikely to have been able to anticipate and one which is not a natural or logical consequence of their commission or omission of action by themselves and I would expect the need to be even greater then.

    The rebalancing of the whole legal system in which the needs of the criminals to be provided with a caring environment in which they might possibly develop to a point at which they will abandon criminality I think has taken no account of the needs of the lawful and peaceful, it is they that really matter and are productive and good people.
    Brave new world, what a beautiful bird in it.

    Hitler had utmost respect for model citizenship, as well.
    The crime rate was very low in the Reich, thanks alone to the Fuehrer.
    I say the cleanness in Nazi German houses was astounding.
    German women were productive, peaceful and good.
    Hitler praised them.

    The wives were lawful and peaceful in Stepford, too.. I am sure they were regarded as productive and good citizens by their worthy husbands.
    Crack-brained demeanour and childish conduct such as picnic, girly talk or giggling, was only an ugly fading memory in Stepford.
    Indeed, the Stepford wives had developed to a point where they had abandoned all criminal instinct.

  10. #150
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Short answer: Nothing at all
    If you are interested in language, words, linguistics, or foreign languages, check out my blog and read, post, and/or share.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] What's wrong with the ENFP?
    By Waffle in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 02-17-2014, 12:43 AM
  2. Sociology - What is wrong with the profession of sociology?
    By cutie_me01 in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-10-2009, 12:18 PM
  3. What's wrong with a little deflation?
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 11:05 PM
  4. What is Wrong with Economy
    By wildcat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:15 AM
  5. [MBTItm] What's wrong with being an xNTJ, anyway?
    By Enyo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 02:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO