Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you agree with the death penalty? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with the death Penalty?
    #YES
    66
    40.49%
    NEVER!
    97
    59.51%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    This is a ridiculous analogy; it's completely different. In most cases the act of sex is a consensual choice between a man and a women, it is a willing choice on the part of both parties. In your analogy I am forced to support the life of another human being. If it had happened in the form of rape and I was impregnated by violence I would choose to keep the baby as two wrongs don't make a right and many women who abort their babies regret it anyway

    Futhermore if his liver was dying I would happily give him a liver transplant.
    There are issues with the argument but yore does little to actually challenge it.

    First the sex being consensual is irrelevant to the arguments. The kidnapping is reference to the baby being there unwillingly.

    I've the kidnap is not a reference to the sex that produced the child but the presence of having a child connected to you against your will

    Second if we assume your initial point stands then why is abortion in the case of rape wrong. You say two wrongs don't make a right but the argument is that abortion is not a wrong.

    Third your willingness to give away your liver does weaken the argument. You choose to give away your liver, but it's a person choice to not choose . Unless of course you believe people should be pirated to donate 60% of their liver every 6 month (I forget the statistic but it's something like you can donate 60% of your liver once every 6 months as it grows back in that period)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    There are issues with the argument but yore does little to actually challenge it.

    First the sex being consensual is irrelevant to the arguments. The kidnapping is reference to the baby being there unwillingly.

    I've the kidnap is not a reference to the sex that produced the child but the presence of having a child connected to you against your will

    Second if we assume your initial point stands then why is abortion in the case of rape wrong. You say two wrongs don't make a right but the argument is that abortion is not a wrong.

    Third your willingness to give away your liver does weaken the argument. You choose to give away your liver, but it's a person choice to not choose . Unless of course you believe people should be pirated to donate 60% of their liver every 6 month (I forget the statistic but it's something like you can donate 60% of your liver once every 6 months as it grows back in that period)
    But the situation is hypothetically ridiculous. It would not happen in real life, whereas abortion is a real thing that happens in real life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    but why should the tax payer pay for them to have very easy lives?

    It actually costs the tax payer MORE when they are 'executed' because of the court cases etc whereas in prison they live on very cheap basic supplies (as far as i know)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    But the situation is hypothetically ridiculous. It would not happen in real life, whereas abortion is a real thing that happens in real life.
    That's irrelevant. Questioning moral ideas usually occurs through hypothetical events unlikely to happen.

    I.e

    Ticking time bomb scenario
    Trolley problem
    The violinist (this case is basically the violinist)
    The expanding child (hypothetical situation Judith Thomson, who came up with the violinist)
    The sadistic guard
    The Case of the Speluncean Explorers
    Lecherous millionaire

    Thought experiments are used thought out philosophy and ethical theories. I doubt you could find me a single major ethical theorist/philosopher who hasn't contributed to a thought experiment.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    That's irrelevant. Questioning moral ideas usually occurs through hypothetical events unlikely to happen.

    I.e

    Ticking time bomb scenario
    Trolley problem
    The violinist (this case is basically the violinist)
    The expanding child (hypothetical situation Judith Thomson, who came up with the violinist)
    The sadistic guard
    The Case of the Speluncean Explorers
    Lecherous millionaire

    Thought experiments are used thought out philosophy and ethical theories. I doubt you could find me a single major ethical theorist/philosopher who hasn't contributed to a thought experiment.
    I am well aware of philosophical theories and thought problems. My argument is that they serve no purpose other than mental stimulation when the subject at hand is real and is happening on an ongoing basis and has basis in the physical world. I.e: It is reality, not some ridiculous hypothetical scenario.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I am well aware of philosophical theories and thought problems. My argument is that they serve no purpose other than mental stimulation when the subject at hand is real and is happening on an ongoing basis and has basis in the physical world. I.e: It is reality, not some ridiculous hypothetical scenario.
    They are more than just there for mental stimulation, they are made to challenge ideas/support them. The violinist is meant to challenge the narrative of right of life. It legitimately does, if it cannot be rebutted then it demonstrates a contradiction. Which effectively renders opposition to abortion (assuming the arguements works) an emotional one/irrational one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    *Breathes

    Regardless of the substance you breathe, a fetus is still fully human past a certain length of time. I fail to see the disparity between killing a fetus whose heart beats, visibly responds to stimuli in the womb, has dreams and has more capacity to feel pain than any adult due to not-yet-fully developed pain mechanisms and killing an adult person. This is a fact fully acknowledged by the medical profession worldwide

    You are wrong in any case, the fetus in the womb still consumes oxygen like an adult would. It's not like the fetus is an alien or anything.

    At least be consistent with your murdering. Either we kill people or we don't. There is no inbetween. You live in a state that legally endorses murder, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Before you come back at me with some pro-choice nonsense about 'a womans own body' then consider this: How is the fetus a womans own body when the genetic materials making up the baby is distinct genetic material from the females own body cells?
    Ants consume oxygen. Do you cry each time you squash one of those?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    They are more than just there for mental stimulation, they are made to challenge ideas/support them. The violinist is meant to challenge the narrative of right of life. It legitimately does, if it cannot be rebutted then it demonstrates a contradiction. Which effectively renders opposition to abortion (assuming the arguements works) an emotional one/irrational one.
    The arguments against abortion are however based in scientific fact, not emotion which arguably is more of a trait of pro-choicers.

    Pro-lifers:

    The fetus can feel pain and is genetically human which can be established empirically. Inflicting pain and murdering another human being is generally considered wrong for good reason. Therefore abortion is wrong.

    Pro-choicers:

    A woman must have the right to choose to murder an innocent being which has it's own distinct genetic sequence and personhood and sentience.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Ants consume oxygen. Do you cry each time you squash one of those?
    I don't squash ants.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Fair enough, giving out a few more whole life terms would be an easy solution.

    (Original post by Carpe Diem Jay)
    Rapists etc.
    Utterly stupid and barbaric.

    (Original post by tebr)
    In that case, a thorough investigation would be done as is the case with all crimes. If the victim of the crime is in fact guilty then the killer would be let off but if the victim was innocent then the killer would get the death penalty.
    You clearly have no understanding of how courts work and why people commit murders. Investigating a crime where the defendant is dead is very rare and very difficult. Someone may say someone deserves to die for doing something that isn't even a crime. Even if you say you can kill a criminal how severe does their offence have to be? All that would do is create a more violent society where vigilante justice became common place.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I think the family of the deceased should decide pre-trial, that in the event of a guilty verdict, the judge and jury are allowed to consider execution as a method of punishment.
    They're the last people who should get a choice, they're far less likely to make a rational decision.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Never. Just no, no, no.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No. These murders or rapists have ended up lives of people who deserved to live but punishing them by killing them will just prove that we are as cruel as they are, in my openion, they should be jailed and entered a rehabilitation program, after all this the purpose of the existance of forensic psychologist !

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    The arguments against abortion are however based in scientific fact, not emotion which arguably is more of a trait of pro-choicers.

    Pro-lifers:

    The fetus can feel pain and is genetically human which can be established empirically. Inflicting pain and murdering another human being is generally considered wrong for good reason. Therefore abortion is wrong.

    Pro-choicers:

    A woman must have the right to choose to murder an innocent being which has it's own distinct genetic sequence and personhood and sentience.

    Feral pain only begins to be felt after an amount of time, generally 24 weeks.

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=201429
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9053416/

    Do you support abortion to save the mother's life? If you do you demonstrate a clear differentiate between feral personhood and actual personhood, that or you prefer the mother's life to the life of the featus.

    In defence of abortion exists to try and demonstrate that a right to choose is a moral right. So far you have done little to oppose the arguements brought up.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Do you support abortion to save the mother's life? If you do you demonstrate a clear differentiate between feral personhood and actual personhood.
    Not necessarily. All it shows is that you value the mothers life other the fetus'.
    (Original post by tebr)
    In that case, a thorough investigation would be done as is the case with all crimes. If the victim of the crime is in fact guilty then the killer would be let off but if the victim was innocent then the killer would get the death penalty.
    The point is 'deserve' is such a silly concept, as far as crime goes. The state murderer believes themselves just as justified as the independent murderer. Mixing personal vendettas and revenge into the justice system is just plain moronic, and not pragmatic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Not necessarily. All it shows is that you value the mothers life other the fetus'.
    True. Will change what I posted.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I don't think you quite understood what I had proposed so allow me to reiterate:

    I said that the family of the deceased should be the one to decide whether or not the judge and/or jury can consider the death penalty to be a suitable punishment in the event of a guilty verdict.

    There will be a trial, there will be a verdict and there may be a punishment. All I'm advocating is that the family of the deceased should be consulted about what punishments they will be seeking or foregoing.

    At the very least, active participation in the justice system would make them feel like justice has been served and would give them some semblance of closure.
    My point remains that they shouldn't have an input because they'd have an emotional response and not a rational one.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    People deal with death emotionally, not rationally.
    And that's fair enough but when a judiciary has someone's life in their hands all decisions and inputs should be rational and not emotional


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tebr)
    I don't understand how so many people can be against punishing criminals fairly.
    Your idea of fairness will not be the same as everyone else's.

    (Original post by tebr)
    x
    Consider the fact that a sizeable number of wrongly convicted people would end up being tortured under this system. Not only would these innocent people have to go through the horrendous ordeal of being lambasted for a crime they didn't commit as sometimes happens now, they'd then face the additional trauma of physical torture.

    Ask yourself: do you really think satisfying your thirst for revenge is worth letting innocent people through that? If you think it is, you're really quite a twisted individual.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And the decision whether to apply the death penalty will be made in a rational manner by an impartial adjudicator.
    You're clearly ignoring what I said; people with an emotional judgement should not be involved in the judicial process - is that clearer for you?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    we should rly take a long hard look at the concepts of innocence and evil. no human is absolutely innocent and no human is absolutely evil. when we start shining the 'judgement light' around we'll see lots of dirty hands, especially from those who condone capital punishment or any other form of violence. under the right circumstances ANY ONE OF US could commit atrocious acts. there are so many factors that contribute to a human being's experience of themselves.

    those of us who murder or commit any other violent act have an acute level of accumulated emotional pain. the more emotional we are, the less rational we are = the more mentally ill/imbalanced we are. there are degrees of mental illness/imbalance in all of us. ego is inseparable from mental illness/imbalance. all of us are mentally ill/imbalanced to some extent because all of us have an ego/mind to some degree.

    so yeah stop it
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.