Death

[New Tolerance]

Suppose I asked you: "what's wrong with killing people."

What would be the justification you give me? (for not allowing people to kill other people)

[Commie-K]

Killing people is wrong because it takes away someone else's right to live. An infringement on another's rights, no matter how severe, is not okay. One does not have to right to take away the rights of another.

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
US Declaration of Independence

[Daymare17]

This is my take on morality.

1) Mankind is everywhere in chains. Everywhere, there is misery, oppression, war.

2) Mankind can only be liberated by revolution.

3) All morality which is not revolutionary becomes the servant of the ruling class.

So, the only reason I can think of not killing a person would be, because the revolution did not require it. Which is usually the case (luckily).

[Capitalist Imperial]

The value of life is variable. The worth of life is dependant upon the situation, specifically in a utilitarian construct.

For instance, collateral damage and "incidentals" incurred during the military operations of a benevolent nation maintaining it's own sovereignty or liberating a greater populace are accpetible, no matter how unfortunate.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I am beginning to think that CI's vocabulary is limited to a few select words that have been spoken on The O'reilly Factor".

How many times can you use "sovereignity" and "benevolent nation" before looking like a jackass?

[Capitalist Imperial]

all you need worry of my vocabulary is that is is better thanyours

[__ca va?]

An infringement on another's rights, no matter how severe, is not okay

I agree with that, but when we imprison someone we violate his right to liberty... this is rather paradox :huh:
But what I can say, I am against the death penalty and wars.


Mankind can only be liberated by revolution.


Not everywhere. In Sweden there were no revolutions at all! And they were still the freest people in Europe until the ~1950's

I don't know how it works with the whole mankind, but actually noone does. What's for sure that it's a matter of time and we'll find it out. I'm optimistic about this matter. :)

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 25 2004, 08:32 PM
The value of life is variable. The worth of life is dependant upon the situation, specifically in a utilitarian construct.

For instance, collateral damage and "incidentals" incurred during the military operations of a benevolent nation maintaining it's own sovereignty or liberating a greater populace are accpetible, no matter how unfortunate.
dont use the word collateral damage just say what it is, DEAD BABIES. dont hide behind words :ph34r:

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 25 2004, 01:32 PM
The value of life is variable. The worth of life is dependant upon the situation, specifically in a utilitarian construct.

For instance, collateral damage and "incidentals" incurred during the military operations of a benevolent nation maintaining it's own sovereignty or liberating a greater populace are accpetible, no matter how unfortunate.
Dude, you sound exactly like Timothy McVeigh.

[Faceless]

There is nothing wrong with people killing other people if they have a reason. Human life has no value but in our own minds. Equally though society has the right to introduce its own conventions to the killers. There is nothing wrong with killing a person. There is nothing wrong with punishing the killer. Having said that it all men have similar interests in not comitting the "taboo" which is to kill and equally have interests in all forms of altruism. If you must kill someone just go ahead and do it. But there's nothing "wrong" in the punishment inflicted.

right and wrong are what you make of them. There is nothing absolute.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:19 PM
Dude, you sound exactly like Timothy McVeigh.
Not a fair comparison, sir.

I am not that guy. I am not half as well balanced. :lol:

[Guerrilla22]

For instance, collateral damage and "incidentals" incurred during the military operations of a benevolent nation maintaining it's own sovereignty or liberating a greater populace are accpetible, no matter how unfortunate.

The fact that you are referring to the invasion of Iraq as an attempt by the US to maintain it's own sovereignty, or to liberate anyone is quite laughable. Exactly how do you maintain your own sovereignty by taking someone else's sovereignty away? Or better yet, if you have to take away someone else's freedom in order to ensure your own freedom, isn't that a moral dilemna, that would be contrary to the idea that the United States stands for freedom that you so whole heartingly endorse?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 25 2004, 02:49 PM
Not a fair comparison, sir.

I am not that guy. I am not half as well balanced. :lol:
I think it's a fair comparison. I'm not asserting you're an evil person, in fact you may well have good intentions, however McVeigh thought that all the kids he killed in the daycare center of the federal building were simply collateral damage of a war he was waging against the federal government in order to "preserve the sovereignty" of the American people and to "liberate" them.

I don't really see how it's unacceptable in those circumstances yet such "collateral damage" is acceptable when you're bombing Afghani weddings and blowing up hospitals and ambulances in Iraq.

Hell, let's take it a step farther. Look at the WTC attacks. Were the thousands dead not simply "collateral damage" in the war to "liberate" and "preserve the sovereignty" of the Palestinian people?

Show me the difference.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Because harming others without good reason is wrong by law, it depends on your world view. Do you believe the consequences of the action are wrong? I f so then you will be lead to believe that an act which may cause harm to another without good reason is wrong.

It's based on a societal view, face it morality is never static nor is truth so the bare bones mean that you can kill somebody and since morality is a social construnt why not. However as a member of a society if you want to remain there you obey the rules. Simple as.

[synthesis]

As pertaining to the original question...

The justification for the immorality of murder and assault is simply the self-interest aspect of 'the golden rule.' If there is nothing stopping me from killing other people, there is nothing stopping other people from killing me, and that's not a particularly pleasant possibility.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe the taking of a life is wrong, unless:

The person killed was a murderer.

The person killed was a torturer.

The person killed was a rapist.

The person killed was trying to kill you.

The person killed consented.

It was an accident.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Why?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it suits me personally.

[Commie-K]

An infringement on another's rights, no matter how severe, is not okay

I agree with that, but when we imprison someone we violate his right to liberty... this is rather paradox
But what I can say, I am against the death penalty and wars.

Ca_va here brings up and interesting point. I didn't consider situations in which one is imprisoned. Imprisonment is sometimes necessary, especially when dealing with killings. The committer needs to be punished. So, in this situation, and only in this, I believe that the committer earned to have their rights taken for what they did.

And I had more to say but I forgot, or can't put it to words. Oh well.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:28 PM
I believe the taking of a life is wrong, unless:
The person killed was a murderer.
The person killed was a torturer.
The person killed was a rapist.
The person killed was trying to kill you.

So is there no such way of rehabilitating any of these people for there crimes, or do you arrest them and send them to the chair?

The prison system allready is failing because it dose not rehabilitat prisoners, and haveing capital punishment will just cause us to make room for more dead bodies.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Kobbot [email protected] 26 2004, 01:03 AM
So is there no such way of rehabilitating any of these people for there crimes, or do you arrest them and send them to the chair?

The prison system allready is failing because it dose not rehabilitat prisoners, and haveing capital punishment will just cause us to make room for more dead bodies.
Where would the justice be in rehabilitating them? They deserve no rehabilitation.

I think there should be death penalty convictions, but only in the case of non-circumstantial, hard, biological forensic evidence, i/e DNA matching.

[Commie-K]

I think rehabilitation is ideal in such situations, but I think murder goes past the point of rehab. Killing someone is so much more severe than robbing a store. I believe that the killer can change to better ways, but... they can't just be let off, they KILLED someone, afterall.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 26 2004, 01:22 AM
Where would the justice be in rehabilitating them? They deserve no rehabilitation.
Prisoners facing life sentences with out pourle are not going to be able to be rehabilitated, but for thouse who have a chance to return to society, being locke up makes them only want to find a way to either get vengence or find a way to not get caught agin.

Meny crimales become depented on being incarcerated because they have crapy lives outside of jail.

By rehabilitating the criminal no longer sees vengance or the need to return to jail, they have been changed to see other opertunitys that may arise for them.

I know, Ive sat in jail and it did shit for me.

[Commie-K]

Exactly, Kobbot. Jail does nothing but keep the individuals out of society. It is only meant to detain them.

[FuckWar]

Truly the idea of death is a societal construct, but so are the conditions that may lead someone to kill someone else. Rather than judge whether it is right or wrong to kill someone, perhaps we should evaluate the circumstances that are created leading to a person killing another person, in other words, society's responsibility. This voids all discussion of imprisonment because the goal is to construct a society where society offers alternatives to violence, greatly decreasing violent crimes/ murder. As for the mentally insane, more socially responsible healthcare would help identify a potential killer before the event.

Taking a life is wrong becasue it does take away a person's right and freedom to live, but death is obviously not the worst thing that can happen to someone and it is important to see it as such.

[Nas]

the hardest thing to do is to forgive

[Commie-K]

Yes, Nas, but we must learn to forgive.

[Nas]

true statement Commie-k

[CubanFox]

Some people don't deserve to be forgiven.

They deserve to be shot.

Truly, you would forgive a person who, without a sliver of doubt, has raped or murdered in cold blood?

[Commie-K]

So you're saying some people are better than others? That some don't deserve what the rest do? I believe that it is POSSIBLE that a killer could be reformed. Now I'm not saying that they do not deserve some type of punishment. And maybe they don't deserve forgiveness for what they've done, but we should try to forgive and forget, and welcome them back into the community, not alienate them. (This is all, of course, if they did reform.)

reform - n. To return to a good state; to amend or correct one's own character or habits; as, a man of settled habits of vice will seldom reform.


1.A change for the better; an improvement.
2.Correction of evils, abuses, or errors.
3.Action to improve social or economic conditions without radical or revolutionary change.

Not that a murder can be corrected in any means, but the mindset of the killer can. It is possible that the killer really does have a change of heart, and all I'm saying is that in this case, we need to welcome them.

[__ca va?]

to kill a man in a paroxysm of passion is understandable, but to have him killed by someone else after calm and serious meditation and on the pretext of duty honourably discharged is incomprehensible

/Marquis de Sade/

I find this true. I'd doubt that killing the serial killer is worse than putting him into jail for the rest of his life. Also, going to the common showers every day........ if you know what I mean.... ;)

And in my opinion this should be only a solution for serial killers, recidivists, and other brutal crimes. I don't think a psychopath can be rehabilitated. :(

For the rest, where there is a possibility of changing better , rehabilitation is good.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So is there no such way of rehabilitating any of these people for there crimes, or do you arrest them and send them to the chair?


We shouldn't bother with any of that reformation crap- the best way to make sure the bastard doesn't do it again is to shoot him! :angry:


The prison system allready is failing because it dose not rehabilitat prisoners, and haveing capital punishment will just cause us to make room for more dead bodies.

Prisons never reform people. What kind of rehabilitation is taking some violent criminals, not-so violent criminals, innocent people and sadistic gaurds and keeping them all cooped up in one building for years at a time? Beats me.

[elijahcraig]

I see no justification, philosophically, for saying that "murder is wrong."

I have an interest in opposing murder as "a means to gain meaningless things." Or as punishment for "crimes."

I have trouble reconciling my views on societal politics and amorality.

[Osman Ghazi]

We shouldn't bother with any of that reformation crap- the best way to make sure the doesn't do it again is to shoot him!


But it really raises the question: is that all the legal system is for? To make sure that they don't do it again? Personnally I think that the justice system has the dual purpose of ensuring the safety of the community but at the same time, it must care for the well-being of the people who have been imprisoned.

And at the practical level, it just makes sense to return individuals to a useful place in society rather than slaughter them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is the duty of the community to make sure that crimes are not committed in the first place. Justice systems are for when that fails (And all societies so far have had a criminal element)


And at the practical level, it just makes sense to return individuals to a useful place in society rather than slaughter them.

Don't worry, there's 6 billion and growing people to go around.

[Osman Ghazi]

Don't worry, there's 6 billion and growing people to go around.


But how long will that last? If the West is any indication, the birth rate per woman will decline dramatically as the 3rd world developes along the capitalist path.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:11 AM
Prisons never reform people. What kind of rehabilitation is taking some violent criminals, not-so violent criminals, innocent people and sadistic gaurds and keeping them all cooped up in one building for years at a time? Beats me.
Ya put a whole bunch of killers in a room, what do you think they are going to talk about? I know, could it be killing?

At any rate the prison system is allready over crowded, I know from experiance with the soap on a rope, not that I droped it.

Rapists and murderers get releast everyday back into the community, they are allowed to live only in certint places, and they are under watch all the time. All the residents get is a note from the state saying that they are going to live in the neiborhood. I am more worried about haveing a violent intruder or an armed robber living next to me.

If the people are reformed they dont want to go and commit the crimes agin. They are more "safe" to live near. Expetialy in cases of violent intruders, meny of them can be reformed. Ever hurd of anger managment.

[Commie-K]

If I had kids, I'd rather be robbed than have my kids molested.

[refuse_resist]

Killing is wrong, unless of course it's an act of self defense.

[BuyOurEverything]

I fail to see how you guys can get so worked up about CI's acceptance of collateral damage. Some collateral damage is acceptable! One needs to weigh the benefits of a military engament against the probable damage it will do and decide whether it is justified. Do you think there will be no babies killed or schools blown up during the revolution? No, we're not going to be throwing flowers from fucking rooftops, guns and bombs will be used and inevitably innocent people will die, that's how it goes. Avoiding this conflict would keep billions of people oppressed, thus the casualties are justified.

The problem with CI's statement is that the war in Iraq was not justified in the first place. Iraq is a far worse place now than it was pre-war and there is little chance of much improvement in the near future.


I have trouble reconciling my views on societal politics and amorality.

My entire life is a dialectic process attempting to reconcile the two.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:28 PM
I believe the taking of a life is wrong, unless:

The person killed was a murderer.

The person killed was a torturer.

The person killed was a rapist.

The person killed was trying to kill you.

The person killed consented.

It was an accident.
Of course if the person, or group, going after the murderer/rapist/torturer is a capitalist. Then it's wrong.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What are you on about?

[dopediana]

Originally posted by Kobbot [email protected] 27 2004, 11:51 PM
Ya put a whole bunch of killers in a room, what do you think they are going to talk about? I know, could it be killing?


no. that's what would happen if you put a bunch of anime freaks in a room together. they'd talk about anime. if you're put in jail, the first thing i'd ask someone else is what they're in there for. killers can sometimes be very unlikely people. a car accident. mixing some household cleaners inappropriately. the head CEO who beat his kid to death.



At any rate the prison system is allready over crowded, I know from experiance with the soap on a rope, not that I droped it.

since the prison system is overcrowded let's kill some inmates instead of releasing the ones incarcerated on nonviolent drug charges!

--------


i, like elijahcraig, have trouble reconciling my societal politics and amorality.

but i don't believe you have the right to take another person's life. there are so many circumstances. someone could have proverbially dropped the anchor in a violent life. it could have happened through their own folly. it could be cultural practice/warfare (i hope you get what i'm saying here). on the other hand, people are conscious of their own actions, don't think before they act, and gaaaah this is agonizing.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:39 PM
since the prison system is overcrowded let's kill some inmates instead of releasing the ones incarcerated on nonviolent drug charges!
Convicting and Imate - Cost way fucken beyond $5,000

Killing an Inmate - Cost for way of exucution, paper work, court fees to gain permision, exc. Hell to much.

Cost to dispose of the body - Dont wanna go there

Amount of money that comes from the tax payers to pay for all of it - Incress on taxes

The joy of having NoXion and AllTomorrowsParties exicuted because they fucked up and went to jail, and it was overcrowed - Priceless

[dopediana]

Kobbot 401's grade in creative writing: F-

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The joy of having NoXion and AllTomorrowsParties exicuted because they fucked up and went to jail, and it was overcrowed - Priceless

Shut the fuck up.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Kobbot [email protected] 29 2004, 10:29 AM
Convicting and Imate - Cost way fucken beyond $5,000

Killing an Inmate - Cost for way of exucution, paper work, court fees to gain permision, exc. Hell to much.

Cost to dispose of the body - Dont wanna go there

Amount of money that comes from the tax payers to pay for all of it - Incress on taxes

The joy of having NoXion and AllTomorrowsParties exicuted because they fucked up and went to jail, and it was overcrowed - Priceless
Are you some sort of twat, Kobbot?

[Kobbot 401]

I was trying to point out that the cost to actually run a prison, and have exicutions is way beyond what and contry would want to spend.

For one night in a Juvenal Prison, it cost o about $85, and thats at a courthouse where they only held for 6 months. Larger prisons cost more to just hold prisoners.

When you say lets just kill the, you have to take into acount what crime they have comited, the about of space avalible for the bodies to be desposed, the health codes and such.

We dont live in a era now where if you were caught stealing bread that you would spend a year in the stockades. Its just not humaine.

[dopediana]

the real problem with america is that prison is an industry. private prisons to which officials turn a blind eye. it's a fucking institution. prisoners don't have a voice which is horrible for what many people consider to be such an advanced society. america doesn't care if people are reformed, much less the jailers. privatizing the prison system is one of the worst things ever that can happen to freedom.

[Kobbot 401]

I compleatly agree with you AllTomarrowsParties. Jail is not used to reform, but just to detain, which is an expensive operation to run.