Absolutists aren’t good at admitting there might be exceptions.
If you can’t say you are anti-death penalty if you think there might be exceptions, then you can’t say you are pro-Obama unless you agree with every single thing he has done.
Regards,
Shodan
What a stupid analogy. “Obama” is not an issue. The death penalty is.
Besides, being “anti-Obama” is meaningless except if you mean favoring someone else to be president. No reason you have to be against every position that Obama holds in order to prefer someone else in the WH.
I see a large difference between an ethical belief and a political position.
Poor baby. You been hanging out with Brazil84?
I’m generally pro-death penalty (albeit rather sceptical) and I would support the execution of Staff Sergent Robert Bales if he is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
That’s shocking.
Doesn’t make sense. If there is reasonable doubt he shouldn’t be convicted.
Perhaps Qin will have a reasonable doubt whether he’s been reasonably convicted.
Qin said beyond reasonable doubt. Did I miss something?
Comparison to abortion is, however, a completely apt analogy. I’m against the death penalty to the extent that I’d be thrilled to see it outlawed across our country as it is in most of the rest of the civilized world. I can’t think of any other case in which I’d advocate for the death penalty within the last century within the presence of a modern prison system. I’m not sure I’d advocate for the death penalty in this case, meaning there would literally be no exceptions. Given that position, I think it’s fine to call myself, as I did in the OP, “a general opponent of the death penalty.”
If you don’t think that’s fine, whatever–but that’s not what I was asking in the OP.
I think this thread needs to go to bed: only a single person, as far as I can tell (Inner Stickler–thank you!), is interested in discussing the OP anymore, but several people want to discuss me as a poster, in which case I invite you to open a thread in the Pit for that purpose.
Inner Stickler, if I’m following you, you’re saying that the increased danger Bales may put his fellow soldiers in is not enough to justify compromising our ethics. Is that right?
If so, I should clarify the reasons I oppose the death penalty: they aren’t conceptual and absolute, but rather they are situated in our specific circumstances. In nearly all circumstances, the death penalty in the modern state does no good. It doesn’t save lives, it doesn’t prevent future crimes, it doesn’t even save money. All it does is to satisfy a need for revenge. Within this context, there’s no good done by executing murderers. On the contrary, satisfying that desire for revenge lessens us, makes us less moral. The execution hurts us, and it’s that harm that makes me oppose the death penalty, not the harm to the murderer. (In addition, of course, there are the issues of uncertainty regarding verdicts, but those don’t apply here).
My suggestion is therefore that, when executing a murderer might do some good, we might consider doing it.
Oh, nonsense. You asked: Death penalty opponents: Afghan massacre soldier an exception?
The answer has clearly been: No.
My answer is also no, and I’ve only recently become an opponent. Before I thought it did some good, but now I know that crime rates are no higher in companies that instigate it. Also, while this probably makes me sound stupid, I recently encountered a site that not only bans people from contributing, but will actually give the most egregious offenders a “Google bounce”, and someone pointed out that the people who objected to that (as I did) also probably objected to the death penalty. I first thought he was wrong, but I looked at his reasoning and I really do object to it.
Just like this board enlightened me to find out I was really a liberal and not the moderate conservative I always thought I was.
And that answer is relevant. The ad hominems not so much.
For “companies” should I read “countries”, and for “instigate” should I read “end”? Otherwise I’m confused :).
If so, it sounds as though you are, like me, more of a pragmatic opponent of the death penalty than a conceptual opponent. I can imagine plenty of cases in which the death penalty would be appropriate–it’s just that none of them exist in the current context. This case is interesting because it does bring about a situation in which enacting the death penalty could result in fewer deaths.
You really think any Afghanis upset enough to attack US soldiers will be mollified by him dying?
You might want to look back over this thread: it was you who started with the ad hominem and belittling.
This, from the OP is where you clearly demonstrate that you are an opponent of convince, not actually an opponent of it. For starters, putting Bales to death on the hypothetical assumption that not doing so might endanger American lives is fairly absurd; the people shooting at us now are still going to be shooting at us if Bales is put to death or not. Decisions on our jurisprudence shouldn’t be made by those fighting us.
More particularly, this change in your ‘general’ opposition to the death penalty is because it affects you personally because of your friend the Marine in Afghanistan. I asked and you never answered how do you feel the families of any murder victim feel and are affected and why those murderers aren’t worthy of the death penalty aside from not being high profile enough cases.
No, a more apt abortion analogy would be if you were opposed to abortion on demand until you accidentally knock someone up, at which point you ask if there should be an exception.
Just to be clear, there are two different questions:
Most folks have addressed #2, but you’re asking about #1, so I’ll only answer the first part in this post.
Obviously, I can’t read the future. But I do think that some will be mollified. I remember hearing Thomas Friedman (I think) talk about how the “kill the terrorists until there are no more terrorists” approach is fundamentally flawed. Once someone has become a terrorist, then yeah, it’s police or military action at that point. But the number of actual terrorists is quite small compared to the number of fence-sitters, that is, people who loathe US policy but aren’t quite ready to take the step of taking up arms against the US. In order to win the war, we also need to persuade those fence-sitters that we’re not so awful.
And in this case, I suspect that a lot of those fence-sitters could easily hop off the fence in the direction of war, if they see the US give this guy what they consider an unacceptably light sentence. But if they perceive that the US treated this crime with the severity it deserves, they might stay on the fence, or even hop off on the other side.
So I’m not saying current fighters will lay down their arms. I’m saying it might keep some future fighters from picking up weapons over this incident.
Post 13 is the classic form of the ad hominem. You addressed me, not the argument. You’ve done nothing but continue in that vein.
I feel like you’re not supposed to be more idealistic than me.
Your claim is absurd and your example is ironically absolutist.
Regards,
Madmonk28