Bobbeh Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Barry Bobbeh, What I mean is, where there is evidence that is 100% (ie: CCTV of them actually doing it etc..) then yes, I think the death penalty is justified. Especially in the example being used at the start of this thread. Yeah, well im still not for it, its proved not to be a deterrant in the US and I do not fully trust the courts in this country still. There have been far too many miss-trials which seemed convincing back in the day, which have been proven false, and what if it was you sitting on death row due to dodgy evidence or corrupt officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner Don't get me started!! I'm the only person who seems to agree with Hitlers plans. Please tell me you forgot to include the smilie to show that you are not serious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Fraid not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Exactly what policies are you in agreement with ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 So you are in favour of homophobia, racism, mass murder and the holocaust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I won't try and explain because I've had experience before where people aren't willing to listen, they have an immediate emotional reaction (understandable) to what I have said, and then hate me forever!!! It'd be even harder I'm sure to explain on here - but just don't assume it's bad, I'm not a fascist or anything!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner I won't try and explain because I've had experience before where people aren't willing to listen, they have an immediate emotional reaction (understandable) to what I have said, and then hate me forever!!! It'd be even harder I'm sure to explain on here - but just don't assume it's bad, I'm not a fascist or anything!! Just how the fuck you could explain your earlier statement that you agreed with Hitler's plans is beyond me. The man was a fucking maniac and a mass murderer and you agree with him? Is there something fucking wrong with you or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by CJ Is there something fucking wrong with you or what? See what I mean. Emotional reaction, immediately made up your mind without listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oxygene Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by CJ I have just read this report on AOL: "Two sick thugs kicked a man to death and then sneered down the phone at his wife: "Your husband won't be coming home." Robin Chard, 47, was returning from a night out in Newcastle when he was attacked by Joseph Mee and Christopher Smith. Mee, 27, bragged to friends how he posed like rugby star Jonny Wilkinson, with bent knees and clasped hands, before he kicked his victim's head like a ball. He also told friends he had taunted Mrs Chard when she phoned her husband's mobile to find out where he was, telling her: "Your husband won't be coming home." The pair then went to Smith's house and listened to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, constantly replaying the line: "Mama, just killed a man." The killers are now facing life in jail after admitting to the murder. They changed their plea to guilty after being presented with evidence from CCTV pictures. Detective Superintendent Steve Wade, who led the investigation, said after the case was adjourned for reports: "These are evil and dangerous men for whom life sentences should mean life. "They used a sickeningly excessive amount of violence against a stranger walking home after a night out. "It could have been anyone. They targeted him because he was smartly dressed and using his mobile phone." Judge John Milford told the pair, who between them have 67 earlier convictions: "The only sentence I can pass and will pass is life imprisonment." Mee and Smith will be sentenced on December 22". So, in cases like this should the death penalty be brought back? (start of rant) That is just brutal I think the whole legal system is 4kd up anyway. The guy who knocked me down when I was 11, didn't even get endorsed for being drunk and as far as I know, is still driving If you kill someone, your punishment should be as severe, although death by mis-adventure could be questioned. In this case, it was a brutal, unprovoked attack and the two guys involved should be dealt with accordingly. :flame Dev (end of rant) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner See what I mean. Emotional reaction, immediately made up your mind without listening. Well I am sorry, but when someone tells me that they are a sympathiser of Hitler, I do tend to get emotional as most any other sane person would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner See what I mean. Emotional reaction, immediately made up your mind without listening. Other than you agree with Hitler's plans, you have not said any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harwood Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner I won't try and explain because I've had experience before where people aren't willing to listen, they have an immediate emotional reaction (understandable) to what I have said, and then hate me forever!!! It'd be even harder I'm sure to explain on here - but just don't assume it's bad, I'm not a fascist or anything!! 'Kin 'ell mate, I thought you were joking! You're a brave man, I'll give you that! I'd love to hear your reasoning though... And I wouldn't jump down your throat for it. Everyones got their own opinions. IMO it's when people try to force theirs on other people that pisses me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner What's people's main reasons for not wanting it back? If it's because we don't (can't) trust the system enough, and we don't want to be guilty of condemning innocent people, is that the same reason all punishments aren't harsh enough? I.E.: prisons aren't scary to a hardened criminal (I bet they are to the odd innocent that goes in). So what's the point of a justice system at all? We should go for it. eye for an eye plus interest judicial system. If it doesn't work properly and we lose a few innocent people (0.1%?), so what? How many lives will be saved or at least made 1000 times better with NO crime? [PS. I have very extreme views on many subjects, this is one of my weaker ones!!] OK, here goes. 1) The death penalty doesn't seem to work. Bobbeh cites the US as an example and I agree. In the US, it's also an unbelievably expensive and time-consuming process. 2) Justice is fallible. It should be obvious that this doesn't render the justice system 'pointless'. But it means that the State at least can't take your life - which is irrevocable. I don't believe that it's ever going to be 100% foolproof. Recognition by CCTV is often poor and subject to error. Eye-witness testimony, as has been known for 30 years, is often weaker than it appears. DNA evidence is subject to contamination. 3) English justice - as well as other Western countries - have long been organised along the principle that 'better ten guilty men walk free than one innocent man is punished'. Most people instinctively feel that being punished by something inescapable for something you didn't do is so terrible that it is worth risking that some guilty don't get 'their just deserts'. 4) It contravenes human rights. If you think that by killing someone you 'give up' your human rights, then you absolutely haven't understood the concept. The idea is that EVERYONE has them and they are as much a part of you as breathing. Human rights legislation, in theory, comes BEFORE any other legislation. So if you live in a country and the mad dictator decides that not wearing socks is a terrible crime - he cannot put you to death for it. So human rights legislation puts a limit on what a government can do to you. You can't pick and choose what crime it applies to and what person it applies to. It might seem obvious that it doesn't apply to murder, but then again in another country, it's 'obvious' that the death penalty ought to apply to adulterers. You either sign up for the total package or you don't. We've signed up for it, and I'm glad, because although it puts limits on punishments for the guilty, it also means the government can't legally do terrible things to me as an innocent citizen. I have other reasons based on the possibility of change in humans and the root causes of crime, but that will do for now. Cliff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Right then, basically it's the argument between emotion and logic, these two things are essentially oposite. I try to be logical about everything I do but for the most part it's impossible because 99% of the population are 'too' emotional. Logically, the idea of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is correct, but generally the populous would say it is better to have 10 families in pain because of a loved one dying through accident, than it would for 1 family to be in pain because of an incorrect verdict in court!! Clearly logic would say this is a silly idea! Similarly, the world's population is now on the exponential increase side of the scale (see this chart), and by 2025 there will be in excess of 10 Billion people on the planet - which in turn means there will not be enough pure water to feed us all (this is a very different subject, and takes a LOT of explaining and arguments!! Believe me!!!). So logically we should not be trying to stop cancer and AIDs but promotimng it as a 'natural' prevention of overpopulation (anyone else agree with Smith in the Matrix that we are a disease?). So logic is very different to what almost every human being agrees with. Logically, Hitlers plan was correct. He wanted a smaller population, all having the same ideas and thinking in a similar way (not to mention the same language/currency etc.). All laws would be accepted and adhered to, there would be no job loss or famine, everyone would be happy because if you didn't agree with his way of life you'd be killed. If it'd worked out for him, those who were (thruthfully) accepting his regimes, and agreeing with his ideas would have for themselves a utopian society. Unfortunately as I said people are emotional, and strongly disagreed with his ideas, and now he's dead. I personally think Hitler was one of the most horrible, vicious, ruthless human beings in all history. I would have gladly shot him in the head if I'd been around and had the chance to. I do not agree with him (maybe I should've chosen my wording differently originally). I do not think he was right. I am a pacifist, not a racist, homophobic mass murderer. I am just able (unlike most) to see things from different viewpoints, logically not emotionally. Thanks for listening! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Tannhauser So if you live in a country and the mad dictator decides that not wearing socks is a terrible crime - he cannot put you to death for it. So human rights legislation puts a limit on what a government can do to you. Good point. It's just that murder is at such a higher level than wearing socks, we can see a reason for using a different set of values for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Hitlers plan was correct. He wanted a smaller population, all having the same ideas and thinking in a similar way (not to mention the same language/currency etc.). One major Flaw in Hitler's plan...Free though:thumbs: Not to mention that we as a country live very close to France and our youth have trouble speaking our language yet alone French...so what chance would we have of learning German as a nation.. Bacicaly as a Globe we are getting more and more over populated and as such Crime in itself will increase..the main problem here ..Just my 2p... is that our laws were written a long time ago and as such out of date , therefore some of the punishments do not fit the crime... (I have 1st hand expirience of this). What can we do about it? ...Yes it makes me sick reading what those 2 guys got up to ..and how in reality their sentence does not totaly match what they have done to that family..How can this be changed when all the laws are passed by a sellect few sitting behind closed doors...sipping on their brandy and puffing away on pipes (stereotypical i know) . But by the time We as a public shout about it and they decide to pass it 10 years have gone and the law is allready out of date ....is this worrying or is it just me ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner Logically, the idea of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' is correct, but generally the populous would say it is better to have 10 families in pain because of a loved one dying through accident, than it would for 1 family to be in pain because of an incorrect verdict in court!! Clearly logic would say this is a silly idea! Similarly, the world's population is now on the exponential increase side of the scale (see this chart), and by 2025 there will be in excess of 10 Billion people on the planet - which in turn means there will not be enough pure water to feed us all (this is a very different subject, and takes a LOT of explaining and arguments!! Believe me!!!). So logically we should not be trying to stop cancer and AIDs but promotimng it as a 'natural' prevention of overpopulation (anyone else agree with Smith in the Matrix that we are a disease?). So logic is very different to what almost every human being agrees with. 'Logic' is only a set of 'rules' which dictate what people accept as a valid argument. An argument can e 'logical' but still come to an incorrect conclusion. This can happen if your premisses (assumptions) are incorrect. For example, the argument: All humans can ride bicycles Steven Hawking is a human Therefore Steven Hawking can ride a bicycle ...IS logical, but the conclusion is false, because the first premiss is mistaken. In a similar way, you've argued: Overpopulation is bad AIDS reduces overpopulation Therefore AIDS is good ...or at least, "logically" we shouldn't prevent it. There are many incorrect assumptions that are being made here. Let's sidestep the moral/ethical ones and go for a practical one. Where is the birthrate highest? Developing countries. Where is it lowest? Developed countries. Lack of development and soaring population go hand in hand, but it isn't the increase in population that CAUSES the lack of development. Birth rates don't fall until you have in place: (1) healthcare (2) education (3) a healthy economy (4) anti-poverty systems (e.g. pensions for the elderly). AIDS, in developing countries, just like war, slows development down and ensures that the population will continue to increase. The effect on the birth rate is going to be greater than the number of people it kills off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sakura Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner Thanks for listening! You're welcome! It's an interesting point of view, and I can understand your logic re. the over-population issue. But isn't there a greater argument for reducing the world population through limited reproduction, rather than simply reducing it though the "natural" wastage of disease? Otherwise, there will still be far too many people in the (not-too-distant) future for the planet to sustain? Apologies, CJ. This thread appears to have been hijacked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Yeah sorry m8, didn't mean it to turn into all this!! At least it's all sort of related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner I personally think Hitler was one of the most horrible, vicious, ruthless human beings in all history. I would have gladly shot him in the head if I'd been around and had the chance to. I do not agree with him (maybe I should've chosen my wording differently originally). I do not think he was right. I am a pacifist, not a racist, homophobic mass murderer. you're lucky you said that because i was ready to give you a fuckin kickin otherwise!!! i'm interested to know what your views on curing cancer etc actually are though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Tannhauser There are many incorrect assumptions that are being made here. Let's sidestep the moral/ethical ones and go for a practical one. Where is the birthrate highest? Developing countries. Where is it lowest? Developed countries. Lack of development and soaring population go hand in hand, but it isn't the increase in population that CAUSES the lack of development. Birth rates don't fall until you have in place: (1) healthcare (2) education (3) a healthy economy (4) anti-poverty systems (e.g. pensions for the elderly). AIDS, in developing countries, just like war, slows development down and ensures that the population will continue to increase. The effect on the birth rate is going to be greater than the number of people it kills off. just what i was about to say mate! hit the nail on the head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Tannhauser There are many incorrect assumptions that are being made here. Let's sidestep the moral/ethical ones and go for a practical one. Where is the birthrate highest? Developing countries. Where is it lowest? Developed countries. Lack of development and soaring population go hand in hand, but it isn't the increase in population that CAUSES the lack of development. Like I said, it's a subject for it's own discussion. I couldn't really make any 'real' relevant points so I tried to use a strong point to get the idea across. Anyhoo, the death penalty then............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner Logically, Hitlers plan was correct. He wanted a smaller population, all having the same ideas and thinking in a similar way (not to mention the same language/currency etc.). All laws would be accepted and adhered to, there would be no job loss or famine, everyone would be happy because if you didn't agree with his way of life you'd be killed. If it'd worked out for him, those who were (thruthfully) accepting his regimes, and agreeing with his ideas would have for themselves a utopian society. Unfortunately as I said people are emotional, and strongly disagreed with his ideas, and now he's dead. Well, you got the last three words right, but there's more holes in the rest of it than a collendar. Let's take one part of it. Assume that the annihilation of the jews, gypsies, homosexuals etc would have made everyone left behind happier. Just for the sake of argument. So, you seem to be saying, the happiness of (say) 35 million people outweighs the unhappiness of, say, 6 million. This is the 'utilitarian' argument (what is right = the greatest good for the greatest number of people) There's a problem with this. If we could measure happiness and unhappiness, the equation might not work out how you want it to. How much does the average German's happiness level go up by having a more orderly, prosperous, less crowded country to live in? Let's call it a modest 20 units. So happiness goes up by 700million units. On the debit side, those in the death camps suffer unbelievable degradation, fear, hopelessness, pain and death. Let's say their happiness decreases by ten times as much as the others - 200 units each. This gives us a debit of 1200 million units, and a net decrease of 500 million units. Obviously, the numbers are chosen to fit my argument. Point is though that when you do the 'greatest good' calculation, you have to take into account the size of the costs/benefits for all the parties affected. Also, logic can only tell us whether an argument is internally consistent. It cannot tell us whether something is morally right. The 'greatest good' argument can lead to ridiculous conclusions. If the best course of action is always to increase the pleasure of the most number of people, then it would be fine for an internet community of sadists to watch a baby being fed into a mincer...the needs of the many outweighing the costs to the few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Sorry CJ you're "Tango-man" and I'm "Off-at-a tangent" man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Don't stop, Cliff. I was enjoying this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.