Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JPD · 10-09-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Actually, you expect everyone else to take responsibility but you are unwilling to take any yourself. I've just sent your argument back to you and you dislike it. I repeat, had the individual who was released and murdered again been put to death in the first place the victim would be alive. So, you must share responsibility for the victim's death. It matters not a jot whether you accept it. If you wish to squirm and wriggle that's your affair.

I am neither squiriming nor wriggling. When you turn my argument around but after the turn it does not argue against any assertion I have made, it is not a sound argument. It is not that I don't like it, it's that it is irrelevant. I never said I supported the release of murderers. Please show me where I did. If I had, you would be right and your argument would be valid. But it is not. It's simple logic. In addition, you are now also adding a false dilemna fallacy to the list of fallacies that you have used in this discussion. A false dilemna fallacy is when you assume that there are only two options when in fact there are many more. You think that there is either being for the death penalty or being for letting murderers run free in society. False dilemna. I am not for either of those things. You neglect to even consider, even though I have already said it, that I may be for strict life imprisnonment for first degree murderers. Since that is in fact my postition, I am not responsioble for any who are released into society against my wishes and without my support. Why is that so hard for you to get? Seems simple enough to me. :banghead:

So show me where I support the murder of innocent people. You can't because I don't. If you support a particular punishment then you take responsibility for everything else it entails. You expect me to be responsible for innocent deaths let you expect to get out of being responsible for people who are murdered by people released from prison who, had the death penalty existed, would not have been able to.

JPD · 10-09-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Me and my ilk?

I love it when this happens. It makes me laugh. I'm getting bored of saying - repeatedly - that I do not wish for innocent people to be punished in any way, not just at the level of capital punishment.

If you think it helps your argument to pigeonhole people then you might want to take another look at the quality of your arguments.

Grumpythe bright has not made any fallacious arguments that I can spot on this thread. I have pointed out three of the most common fallacies that you have used in your arguments, straw man, slippery slope and false dilemna (or bifurcation). Learn about them here to see what a fallacy is and why those particular fallacies are unsound as arguments hence allowing me to dismiss them without squirming or wiggling. Thanks for making it easy! :wave:

Yes, I'm quite familiar with them. Just because they are logical, however, does not necessarily mean they have any bearing on reality.
There's a little phrase that you should be aware of - now let me see....pride, fall, comes, before...just rearrange. Combining false arrogance with the sterility of regurgitated hackneyed phrases looks a bit weak.

That we do not agree seems to trouble you - it doesn't worry me in the slightest. I recognise and value all views.

Blackbeard · 10-09-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

I am neither squiriming nor wriggling. When you turn my argument around but after the turn it does not argue against any assertion I have made, it is not a sound argument. It is not that I don't like it, it's that it is irrelevant. I never said I supported the release of murderers. Please show me where I did. If I had, you would be right and your argument would be valid. But it is not. It's simple logic. In addition, you are now also adding a false dilemna fallacy to the list of fallacies that you have used in this discussion. A false dilemna fallacy is when you assume that there are only two options when in fact there are many more. You think that there is either being for the death penalty or being for letting murderers run free in society. False dilemna. I am not for either of those things. You neglect to even consider, even though I have already said it, that I may be for strict life imprisnonment for first degree murderers. Since that is in fact my postition, I am not responsioble for any who are released into society against my wishes and without my support. Why is that so hard for you to get? Seems simple enough to me. :banghead:

So show me where I support the murder of innocent people. You can't because I don't. If you support a particular punishment then you take responsibility for everything else it entails. You expect me to be responsible for innocent deaths let you expect to get out of being responsible for people who are murdered by people released from prison who, had the death penalty existed, would not have been able to.

Your support of the death penalty kills people. My being against the death penalty does not. Period. Simple. There are two ways of absolutely keeping a murderer from murdering again: 1) kill him or 2) confine him. I support option 2. I do not support the fallacious option of 3) release him because it does not suit my stated objective. My method of keeping murderers off the streets will work as well as yours, will it not? And mine has the added bonus of not being responsible for anyone's death!. Cooell!:wave:

JPD · 10-09-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

So show me where I support the murder of innocent people. You can't because I don't. If you support a particular punishment then you take responsibility for everything else it entails. You expect me to be responsible for innocent deaths let you expect to get out of being responsible for people who are murdered by people released from prison who, had the death penalty existed, would not have been able to.

Your support of the death penalty kills people. My being against the death penalty does not. Period. Simple. There are two ways of absolutely keeping a murderer from murdering again: 1) kill him or 2) confine him. I support option 2. I do not support the fallacious option of 3) release him because it does not suit my stated objective. My method of keeping murderers off the streets will work as well as yours, will it not? And mine has the added bonus of not being responsible for anyone's death!. Cooell!:wave:

I am unwilling to grant someone who has intentionally taken the life of another - without sound reason or unless on the basis of mental health issues - the privilege of continuing their existence. Such people have absolutely no value to society whatsoever. Why should I foot the bill for their continued existence? For keeping garbage accommodated?

Blackbeard · 10-09-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

Grumpythe bright has not made any fallacious arguments that I can spot on this thread. I have pointed out three of the most common fallacies that you have used in your arguments, straw man, slippery slope and false dilemna (or bifurcation). Learn about them here to see what a fallacy is and why those particular fallacies are unsound as arguments hence allowing me to dismiss them without squirming or wiggling. Thanks for making it easy! :wave:

Yes, I'm quite familiar with them. Just because they are logical, however, does not necessarily mean they have any bearing on reality.

another straw man? All I did was show that the argument you thrust at me twice was fallacious, therefore invalid, ie what you accuse me of does not follow from my stated position. IOW, you attacked a position I did not and do not take. That is the reality.

You have yet to answer a couple of simple questions I asked of you:

1) Is our justice system perfect?
2) Will it ever be perfect?
3) Have mistakes been made?
4) Will mistakes be made again in an imperfect system?
5) Is anything less than perfection acceptable in capital cases?
6) Should Scott Peterson have been sentenced to death without any solid forensic evidence against him presented at trial?
7) You yourself said how important DNA testing is for being "certain" you got the right guy (more precisely you said to "diminsh errors"). Does it bother you that a man would be sentenced to death without such evidence?

These are all yes or no questions, so it should be quick and easy to answer them. Of course feel free to elaborate if need be.

JPD · 10-09-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Yes, I'm quite familiar with them. Just because they are logical, however, does not necessarily mean they have any bearing on reality.

another straw man? All I did was show that the argument you thrust at me twice was fallacious, therefore invalid, ie what you accuse me of does not follow from my stated position. IOW, you attacked a position I did not and do not take. That is the reality.

You have yet to answer a couple of simple questions I asked of you:

1) Is our justice system perfect?
2) Will it ever be perfect?
3) Have mistakes been made?
4) Will mistakes be made again in an imperfect system?
5) Is anything less than perfection acceptable in capital cases?
6) Should Scott Peterson have been sentenced to death without any solid forensic evidence against him presented at trial?
7) You yourself said how important DNA testing is for being "certain" you got the right guy (more precisely you said to "diminsh errors"). Does it bother you that a man would be sentenced to death without such evidence?

These are all yes or no questions, so it should be quick and easy to answer them. Of course feel free to elaborate if need be.

I know it isn't perfect - everyone knows this. The evidence must be absolutely sound. Perhaps this is a premise I need to add - a condition that must be fulfilled in order that the death penalty operates. Perhaps it represents an ideal that can't be reached. Perhaps it represents something to aim for. I don't want to see anyone being punished for something they haven't done - it makes a mockery of the word justice. But I still think that the death penalty should apply for certain crimes.

I wonder why you are so desperate for everyone else - well me at any rate - to think the same way that you do. Is it the ego? Is it points on a scoreboard? Do you somehow feel better if you believe that others believe the same things that you do? Would a society in which everyone held the same views be a good thing?

Blackbeard · 10-09-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

Your support of the death penalty kills people. My being against the death penalty does not. Period. Simple. There are two ways of absolutely keeping a murderer from murdering again: 1) kill him or 2) confine him. I support option 2. I do not support the fallacious option of 3) release him because it does not suit my stated objective. My method of keeping murderers off the streets will work as well as yours, will it not? And mine has the added bonus of not being responsible for anyone's death!. Cooell!:wave:

I am unwilling to grant someone who has intentionally taken the life of another - without sound reason or unless on the basis of mental health issues - the privilege of continuing their existence. Such people have absolutely no value to society whatsoever. Why should I foot the bill for their continued existence? For keeping garbage accommodated?

You've stated that already, I think more than once, so I am well aware of your proclivities on this issue. But you again avoided answering a simple yes or no question: Will both confining someone and killing them serve the same end as far as keeping them from committing murder again? So either serves your purpose of protecting society at large. But confining rather than killing convicted (though not necessarily guilty) murderers, it allows for those who were wrongly convicted to be exonerated at any time during the course of their natural lives, something that is moot if they are killed. Fact (please verify if you like): innocent men have been put to death in the gas chamber many times. There is no special evidenciary requirement for capital cases, ie no requirements for DNA or other solid forensic evidence. Even if there were, it would still be an imperfect system and because it is imperfect mistakes will be made (this is true for any imperfect system) and the mistake in this case costs an innocent man his life, a life all who support capital punishment are responsible for, IMHO.

JPD · 10-09-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

I am unwilling to grant someone who has intentionally taken the life of another - without sound reason or unless on the basis of mental health issues - the privilege of continuing their existence. Such people have absolutely no value to society whatsoever. Why should I foot the bill for their continued existence? For keeping garbage accommodated?

You've stated that already, I think more than once, so I am well aware of your proclivities on this issue. But you again avoided answering a simple yes or no question: Will both confining someone and killing them serve the same end as far as keeping them from committing murder again? So either serves your purpose of protecting society at large. But confining rather than killing convicted (though not necessarily guilty) murderers, it allows for those who were wrongly convicted to be exonerated at any time during the course of their natural lives, something that is moot if they are killed. Fact (please verify if you like): innocent men have been put to death in the gas chamber many times. There is no special evidenciary requirement for capital cases, ie no requirements for DNA or other solid forensic evidence. Even if there were, it would still be an imperfect system and because it is imperfect mistakes will be made (this is true for any imperfect system) and the mistake in this case costs an innocent man his life, a life all who support capital punishment are responsible for, IMHO.

I believe I have covered this in my response above. I can quite believe that many innocent people have been put to death. I find it absolutely unnacceptable. What the whole justice system needs is a boot up the ass. The death penalty would work properly if the system it depended on worked properly. This is what should be aimed for - not incarcerating people for decades. But only for specific crimes.

Blackbeard · 10-09-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgold6

another straw man? All I did was show that the argument you thrust at me twice was fallacious, therefore invalid, ie what you accuse me of does not follow from my stated position. IOW, you attacked a position I did not and do not take. That is the reality.

You have yet to answer a couple of simple questions I asked of you:

1) Is our justice system perfect?
2) Will it ever be perfect?
3) Have mistakes been made?
4) Will mistakes be made again in an imperfect system?
5) Is anything less than perfection acceptable in capital cases?
6) Should Scott Peterson have been sentenced to death without any solid forensic evidence against him presented at trial?
7) You yourself said how important DNA testing is for being "certain" you got the right guy (more precisely you said to "diminsh errors"). Does it bother you that a man would be sentenced to death without such evidence?

These are all yes or no questions, so it should be quick and easy to answer them. Of course feel free to elaborate if need be.

I know it isn't perfect - everyone knows this. The evidence must be absolutely sound. Perhaps this is a premise I need to add - a condition that must be fulfilled in order that the death penalty operates. Perhaps it represents an ideal that can't be reached. Perhaps it represents something to aim for. I don't want to see anyone being punished for something they haven't done - it makes a mockery of the word justice. But I still think that the death penalty should apply for certain crimes.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Everyone who is for the death penalty thinks that it should be used only for certain crimes. I think universally it has to be first degree murder and depending on the state there might need to be special circumstances for a capital sentence to be passed. So, now we have the problem of people disagreeing on what crimes are the ones that can be charged as capital offenses. More importantly, there should be evidentiary rules, maybe a certain number chosen from certain types of solid forensic evidence needs to be presented and the chain of possession needs to be spotless and everything triple verified by several people to eliminate any possibility of evidence tampering. Are we perfect yet? Closer perhaps, but not perfect I don't think. So what else can we do? I could go on, but my point here is that to achieve perfection you would have to make the rules so stringent that they would be pretty much impossible to fulfill in any given case. I'd be OK with that. :Cheeky:

Blackbeard · 10-09-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

I wonder why you are so desperate for everyone else - well me at any rate - to think the same way that you do. Is it the ego? Is it points on a scoreboard? Do you somehow feel better if you believe that others believe the same things that you do? Would a society in which everyone held the same views be a good thing?

I am not desperate for anyone to think the way I do. I am expressing my opinion just as you are expressing yours. These forums are about debate, so when I see holes in someone's arguments, I try to expose them. If I disagree with someone, I express it and state why. If they counter my argument, I am more than happy to contiune and if i can find anything impeachable in my oppponents arguments, I will impeach it. I invite you to do the same with anything I post. But attack what I really say. It does you no good to attack a position I have not expressed or endorsed.

And no, a society where everyone held the same views would be boring as shit. But a society free of murder, especially state sanctioned murder, I could totally groove with that. :wave:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.