JPD

But what is there to address? I've already accepted that the system is imperfect but that I believe in capital punishment for certain crimes. I think that we should use it but that it necessitates an overhaul of the judicial and police systems. I have to accept innocent deaths will sometimes occur, and, despite what some people are saying, I DON'T HAVE ANY DESIRE TO SEE INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE (frankly, if people need to believe that I do to uphold their position that's more of a statement about them than me), but I believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs.

Oolon Colluphid

We used to have to write 'maxims for the day' at the top of each day's work at school. 'God is love', 'Jesus died for our sins', and so on.

Being a famous quote does not make something true. Yours smacks of glib pseudo-profundity.

For instance, take the police sniper who shoots dead a gunman holding a hostage at gunpoint. Suppose, further, that one hostage has already been killed by the gunman. Does the sniper shoot to kill because he's too incompetent to talk the guy around? Or because the negotiators are? No, the gunman has said he'll shoot hostages unless he gets what he wants. He's not interested in negotiation. So pacifism fails.

Similarly -- a fortiori -- a belief system... say, militant Islam... that says that the infidel must die, and it's worth dying yourself to achieve this: "All martyrdom operations, if done for Allah's sake, hurt less than a gnat's bite!" and so on. Such people are unlikely to be talked round; they want to die while killing, they want the promised paradise. Does that make us the incompetent ones if we resort to violence?
Then you are not really a consequentialist. 'What harm was caused?' Temporary pain to some tosser. What were the benefits? That he left you alone, perhaps left others alone, and others who might have also picked on you left you alone too.

You seriously think you could have negotiated that result?

Harm: not a lot.
Benefits: many and various.
Consequentialist verdict: the violence was justified.

Precisely.
And sometimes violence can be justified.
That's nice. Now try it with an Islamist with a dodgy-looking rucksack. Try dealing with those who would kill you for writing a book or making a film in that way and see how far it gets you.
Bingo! :bulb:
'The problem with absolute pacifism... is that not everyone is one.' Well duh. I'd prefer to say that the problem with absolute pacifism is that such idealistic fools tend to be the first to get their heads kicked in (or worse).
No, it is lunacy, precisely because not everyone will lay down their arms. Might may not make right, but it does let you win. Indeed, such an idealist modus vivendi may well be psychologically impossible for our species. Complete pacifism certainly doesn't look to me like an evolutionarily stable strategy -- it is always open to abuse. Which means that complete, unilateral pacifism is like hoping to win at playing 'chicken' by always swerving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-dove_game#Chicken

It would appear to be an unevolvable strategy, and so not one that we are naturally psychologically predisposed to. Not that we cannot "overcome the tyranny of our selfish genes"... more that some people may not be so keen to do so, which leaves us stuffed.
I too like dreams.

But I try to function in the real world.
Then you are not a consequentialist, but an absolutist. Cool. What about abortion then? What about situations where the 'person' holding the loaded gun is not a person, but a state, as with Nazi Germany? You do realise that appeasement... failed? To those who do not subscribe to your (highly laudable, I agree) ideal, pacifism is a sign of weakness. And we all know -- have intimate schoolground knowledge of -- what happens to the weak. ETA: "Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war". Said Churchill.
Agreed. But note the wording: "long for and strive toward". It's an goal to aim for, not a Commandment [sic].

Oolon Colluphid

I do understand all that, J. So what are these benefits?

Oolon Colluphid

"First they came for the Jews, and I tried to explain to them why they were misguided, but they killed the Jews anyway. Then they came for the apostates, and I negotiated for peace, but they killed the apostates anyway. Then they came for the adulterers and homosexuals, and I again spoke out, but they killed the adulterers and homosexuals anyway (because their holy book told them to, and brooked no dissent). Then they came for me for being a humanist and not embracing the prophet, and I just rolled over."

Blackbeard

Nothing. Are we having the same discussion?

You are hypocritical because you say you value innocent life above all else yet you would support a capital punishment system that will kill innocent people. You are not willing to wait for the better system that you wish for rather you would support it now even with it's flaws and hope it gets better. If you value innocent life as much as you say you do, you should change your tune and say "I do not support capital punishment as it stands due to the possibility, however remote, that an innocent man might be executed by the state. If a better system that would prevent this possibility were to be implemented, at that time I would support capital punishment." Until you can say that, you are a hypocrite.

Blackbeard

Thank you

Blackbeard

Where is the ad hominem? I made a little joke about reading speed and pointed out something about your behavior that is telling of your personality, that is all. I did not say what it told me, now did I? What it does tell me is that you are a confidant person. So confidant in fact that you feel you needn't even bother reading any other's ideas or thoughts before responding to them. Confidence is good, is it not?

Blackbeard

No, shoot the fucker. He is posing an immediate and imminent threat. Bad example. When I use the term "self"-defense, I do use it broadly so I should be more specific, but I have been accused of being too wordy. When I think of the "self" in "self"-defense, I think of the person and all those they are responsible for. Many can not defend themselves so we hire people to defend us should we need it. We call those people police, the military. etc.

see above

OK, I concede this point. I'm effin glad I punched that guy. It felt good.

Immediate and imminent threat . See above.

Self defense is justifiable (I thought I mentioned this in the post where I initially said I was an absolute pacifist. I thought I made that clear ... I guess not ... maybe I should have been more wordy) I would use whatever means necessary to avoid that outcome.

I agree with all that and I find that I am able to operate in the real world yet still strive for an ideal. I do not think anything is wrong with having a pipe dream as long as you know that is what it is, which clearly I do.

Any entity, be it a person, a country, a group, has the right to defend itself and/or others who are under immediate an imminent threat from an aggressive party. Oops, I guess I hadn't clarified my position in an earlier post. When I use the maxim "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent", I do assume that it applies only to entities not under imminent and immediate threat. I will cease making that assumption. I will now say "Unless in self-defense, violence is the last resort of the incompetent" using my broad meaning of self.

The war in Afghanistan was unjustified as Afghanistan was not an immediate nor imminent threat. If Saddam had actually had WMD's, I would have supported the Iraq war. But I never did because the lies were apparent. How did I know? GW's lips were moving.

I know. And how do we strive for it? By, as much as humanly possible, living and believing that way, IMHO.

Fenrir's Nemesis

Do you think the victim's family should be allowed to exact vengeance for rapes or murders of loved ones?

Fenrir's Nemesis

Were the capital punishment system utilized as a deterrent, as it is in other countries, killing innocent people in lieu of the actual killer, if there is compelling evidence to do so, will still deter others from committing capital crimes. In doing so, it would protect more innocent life than it would harm,