Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jehanne · 08-08-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would need to see an actual study, and it would need to contain more than conjecture based on postmortem toxicology. People on both sides of any issue have been known to present findings in a skewed way.

Here's the BBC article on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4444473.stm

Unfortunately, The Lancet requires a subscription! :huh:

Reign_Cryogen · 08-08-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

Would you say the same thing about blacks? Hispanics?

It would depend a great deal on where those blacks/hispanics in question are, wouldn't it?

Viti · 08-08-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

Here's the BBC article on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4444473.stm

Unfortunately, The Lancet requires a subscription! :huh:

Very, very vague. Much use of "suggests", "appears to", "possibly", "might/not", etc.

Sure, their findings should spur further investigation and possibly changes in the amounts administered to ensure there is no suffering, but that's about as far as I can concede your point.

Yahzi · 08-08-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

However, knowing that one will cease to exist tomorrow at 7:08 AM would probably be one of the most unsettling experiences imaginable

Maybe they should have thought about that before they started shooting people.

There are good reasons to oppose the death penalty. Concern for the criminals is not one of them.

Yahzi · 08-08-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

Crime is a social construct, which means that one century’s heretic is another century’s saint.

Violent crime is a biological construct. Unless you think that black slaves in America rejoiced to see their children sold down the river, because that was their culture.

The fact that you cannot distinguish heresy from murder does not constitute evidence.

Now that your premise has been exposed as false, will it have any impact on your position?

BDS · 08-08-2005, 02:10 PM

"Crime" is neither a "social construct" nor a "biological construct". It is a cultural (and legal) construct.

Concern for criminals is a perfectly good reason to oppose the death penalty. Why wouldn't it be? Does Yahzi think ALL concern for criminals is misplaced? Suppose we started executing heretics and witches (as, indeed, we have done in the past). Would concern for the criminals continue to be a bad reason to object?

Sarpedon · 08-08-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

It's a well known fact that Western Europeans are wimps.

Quit trying to masquerade your opinion as a "well known fact."

BDS · 08-08-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

Quit trying to masquerade your opinion as a "well known fact."

No reasonable person would think that I was doing so.

Sarpedon · 08-09-2005, 07:26 AM

Please, present your evidence that they are wimps. It is not a "well known fact," it is a "commonly held opinion."

I've been to western europe, and that was not my impression. And don't call me unreasonable.

If you think that having a non-interventionalist foreign policy is "wimpy," perhaps you should read more about the history of Algeria, Vietnam, Angola, the former Belgian Congo, Somalia, Cambodia and a myriad of other places.

If you mean that not having a death penalty is "wimpy," again, you should review the fact that west european countries that don't have it have a lower incidence of violent crime. There also was a recent UN study that said that the death penalty was not an effective deterrent. So, apparently paying attention to the facts and not succumbing to violent impulses of revenge and retribution is "wimpy."

If you mean something else, please explain.

Reign_Cryogen · 08-09-2005, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

If you mean something else, please explain.

The word you're looking for is "sarcasm."

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

08-08-2005, 02:10 PM	#36
BDS Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Eugene, OR, USA Posts: 3,187	"Crime" is neither a "social construct" nor a "biological construct". It is a cultural (and legal) construct. Concern for criminals is a perfectly good reason to oppose the death penalty. Why wouldn't it be? Does Yahzi think ALL concern for criminals is misplaced? Suppose we started executing heretics and witches (as, indeed, we have done in the past). Would concern for the criminals continue to be a bad reason to object?

08-09-2005, 07:26 AM	#39
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	Please, present your evidence that they are wimps. It is not a "well known fact," it is a "commonly held opinion." I've been to western europe, and that was not my impression. And don't call me unreasonable. If you think that having a non-interventionalist foreign policy is "wimpy," perhaps you should read more about the history of Algeria, Vietnam, Angola, the former Belgian Congo, Somalia, Cambodia and a myriad of other places. If you mean that not having a death penalty is "wimpy," again, you should review the fact that west european countries that don't have it have a lower incidence of violent crime. There also was a recent UN study that said that the death penalty was not an effective deterrent. So, apparently paying attention to the facts and not succumbing to violent impulses of revenge and retribution is "wimpy." If you mean something else, please explain.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.