quote:POSSIBLY. Not so much that they are more valuable from MY perspective. But from the individuals perspective an atheist has more to fear from death (typically not ALWAYS) then somebody who believes in an afterlife.
Therefore the suffering of an atheist could be argued as greater then a believer.
Ok. I really, really disagree with this, but now at least I feel like I have a firm grasp of exactly what you're trying to say.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know both parties have dropped this, but I didn't see Dagonee admit that he misread erosomniac's last post. According to the original statement, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not. As many times as I've seen Dag make people say uncle over nuances such as these, I feel morally obligated to do the same to him.
JT, you are wrong. I've already explained it am not sure if explaining again will matter, but here goes:
Original statement: "I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone."
Consider two possible facts:
X: the defendant killed someone. Y: the defendant should get the death penalty.
The original statement says If not X then not Y.
Given If not X then not Y, we know the following:
If Y then X.
We cannot say If X then Y based solely on the original statement. It's not the same statement.
It's true that child rape absent death (not X) could not result in the death penalty according to the original proposition.
It is not true that manslaughter could justify the death penalty. It is merely true that if manslaughter does not justify the death penalty, the reason for lack of justification is different than the reason for lack of justification in child rape.
Nuance is my bag, man.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:POSSIBLY. Not so much that they are more valuable from MY perspective. But from the individuals perspective an atheist has more to fear from death (typically not ALWAYS) then somebody who believes in an afterlife.
Therefore the suffering of an atheist could be argued as greater then a believer.
Ok. I really, really disagree with this, but now at least I feel like I have a firm grasp of exactly what you're trying to say.
Remember I am merely presenting an idea that I am considering. Not stating an opinion or any sort of belief.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I misspoke. We DO know that with the information given, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not.
and your response to it:
quote:No, we don't. He hasn't listed all the conditions necessary. He did not say that all people who kill someone should receive it.
How can you say that "it's not true that manslaughter could justify the death penalty"? The only sufficient condition we're given is that killing is necessary for the death penalty. Manslaughter meets that condition, does it not? Manslaughter does not have to result in the death penalty, by the original statement, but it certainly could, right?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only sufficient condition we're given is that killing is necessary for the death penalty.
We are not given any sufficient conditions. That's the whole point.
Death of the victim is necessary to justify the death penalty. There's no indication that it is sufficient to justify the death penalty.
If someone says, "He came on my land without my permission so I want you to charge him with robbery," a perfectly accurate response would be to state that the actor must enter your dwelling to be guilty of burglary.
It does not mean that entering a house justifies a burglary conviction. The actor must also intend to commit a felony therein at the time of entry. However, the original contention (he came on my land - charge him with burglary) can be dismissed entirely by mentioning only the dwelling entry requirement. Therefore, when someone has dismissed the contention in that manner, it is not accurate to assume that all the things that disqualify a burglary conviction were mentioned.
quote:Manslaughter does not have to result in the death penalty, by the original statement, but it certainly could, right?
No. We don't know that. Suppose the three requirements for the death penalty are:
1.) death of the victim 2.) intentionally caused by the perpetrator 3.) and involving unusual cruelty.
Back to the original proposition, he was rejecting the contention that rape could justify execution. The only thing we know from this statement is that death is necessary. It's possible this person has the three requirements I listed above. It's possible this person has no other requirements. It's also possible that he has 8 other requirements. We don't know from the context of the post.
It was clearly relevant to the purpose of the communication - to oppose the contention that rape justifies execution - without being a complete list of things needed to justify the death penalty. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that according to that principle, manslaughter could justify the death penalty.
It is accurate to say that the principle doesn't disqualify manslaughter from the death penalty. A different nuanced meaning altogether.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All an atheist has to fear from death is the same thing they had to fear before they were born. a lack of anything. If you didn't suffer before you were born, why would you suffer after you died?
To an atheist (or at least THIS atheist) the tragedy of death is the end of joy. Not that I'll notice, of course.
To try and be as clear about this as possible, here's exactly how I'm reading this:
Original statement: "I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone."
Assuming the statement "You cannot get the death penalty unless you kill someone,"
1) You cannot get the death penalty for repeatedly raping children.
2) You CAN get the death penalty for manslaughter. I am not saying that the given statement alone is enough to draw a conclusion, I'm saying that manslaughter is in the pool of crimes that are NOT precluded by the original statement.
Edit to add: now that I read the bottom of your last post, I see that we're more or less on the same page, I'm probably just not being as rigorous.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My entire point is that "You CAN get the death penalty for manslaughter" and "manslaughter is in the pool of crimes that are NOT precluded by the original statement" are two entirely different statements.
The latter is supported by the original statement.
The former is not supported by the original statement. It is simply not contradicted by the original statement. But the original statement doesn't contradict the statement, "You can get life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread," either. Unless a statement purports to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject, you can't assume that it supports all statements that it does not contradict.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:you can't assume that it supports all statements that it does not contradict.
Right, this is where we went wrong: I read the original statement and immediately generated in my head a subjective bubble of "crimes which should be included in this context," and my entire problem was my subjective bubble being completely different than yours, or the OP's.
quote: Manslaughter does not have to result in the death penalty, by the original statement, but it certainly could, right?
No. We don't know that.
Are you saying that manslaughter could not result in the death penalty?
Me: It could, right? You: No.
I understand what you're saying. What erosomniac and I are saying is that it could, but it doesn't have to. That's what 'could' means. It's possible, but not definite.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is accurate to say that the principle doesn't disqualify manslaughter from the death penalty.
Which is what I was saying with "Manslaughter could result in the death penalty."
Not 'should' or 'will', but 'could'.
Edit: I see what you mean about it being a sufficient condition, that was poor wording on my part.
Further edit: I see what you're getting at. I see the difference in our two statements at the top of this post.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's what 'could' means. It's possible, but not definite.
And I'm saying we don't know if it's possible under the original poster's schema for justifying the death penalty.
The "information given" was incomplete. We know a little about what's impossible, but nothing about what is possible.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is what I was saying with "Manslaughter could result in the death penalty."
If you say "Manslaughter could result in the death penalty" then you are saying if someone commits manslaughter, it would be possible to try them and seek the death penalty.
It is absolutely consistent with the original poster's statement that it is not possible to try someone for manslaughter and seek the death penalty.
Therefore we don't know if manslaughter could result in the death penalty or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"The former is not supported by the original statement. It is simply not contradicted by the original statement. But the original statement doesn't contradict the statement, "You can get life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread," either. Unless a statement purports to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject, you can't assume that it supports all statements that it does not contradict."
This cleared it up.
Return to your regularly scheduled death penalty thread.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Now, all crimes of rape and murder are terrible horrible unforgivable crimes, but it becomes much too easy to be swayed by a slick talking lawyer that any one particular crime is death penalty worthy. When that slick talking lawyer lowers the bar and make the death penalty easier, then the irredeemable nature of crime becomes lower, next thing you know we are sending little kids to the Death Chamber.
That's one hell of a slippery slope there. Also, usually it's not the DAs who are accused of being "slick."
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I'm reminded of the 'Three Strikes' law, in some states it was enacted with the intent to included crimes of violence and other extreme felonies, but it gradually was soften until it included any three felonies.
::scratches head::
The word "soften" seems to have a different meaning when you use it than when I do . . .
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: In the case in question, I can see the death penalty for VIOLENT rape . . . Without excessive violence, without a clear lack of conscience, and with repentance or remorse, I don't think the death penatly is justified. If they indicate habitial but non-violent behavior, then at some point, total life long isolation from society is the preferred method.
To rape a child is a terrible terrible thing, but to kill a man is also terrible. I think the circumstances of the event in question needs to be looked at. Sadly, some kids are seduced through a gradual process. In a sense, they engage willingly. However, it is still a crime, because willing or not, kids simply don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the full implications of their actions.
Further, the seduction is a form of misinformation. Kids trust adults to guide them with a sense of right and wrong, and the seducer is quiding them with a false and warped sense of right. It is still rape. However, insidious as it may be, it is not violent, and while it shows complusive desires, it doesn't show a lack of conscience.
You seem to be going back and forth here . . . so I can't reply without being clearer on where you stand, but I have a real hard time with the notion that non-violent child rape is not damaging, compared to violent child-rape.
quote:The word "soften" seems to have a different meaning when you use it than when I do . . .
I think he meant the boundaries between 3-strike eligible laws and non-3-strike eligible laws were softened.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got that it was something like that, but I think "soften" is a deliberately charged word, as it has connotations of weakness, and so I dispute it on rhetorical grounds. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Frankly, I think the emotional damage done to a child victim in these cases can sometimes be considered a fate worse than death.
I don't disagree with this original statement. Note that he did say sometimes. I do disagree with the later assertion that nobody does heal, though. I would not say that I am completely healed, though, and I would say that many people don't make it as far as I have.
I am in favor of this law, insofar as I favor the death penalty at all--I'm somewhat lukewarm in my support of it, but I still lean in that direction. I wouldn't go so far as to say that you never heal, but I would say that child rapists do a lifetime of damage. And we're not talking about death penalty for all child rapists here, but for those who are repeatedly convicted. I would venture to guess that most cases of child rape go unconvicted. If you manage to catch, prosecute, and convict somebody twice, you can pretty much bet that they have left more than a dozen deeply damaged kids in their wake. And the impression I get of current sentencing is that convicted pedophiles don't stay in prison for all that long, in the larger scheme of things.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: If the death penalty were televised, it would disappear in a few days.
I doubt it. It might make a few people cry, have knotted throats, but eventually people would just get used it.
The Romans whenever they crucified people invited the populace to come and watch. It was supposed to have deterent effect on would be criminals but it didnt.
How many women would get abortions if they had to hold a jar of an aborted fetus while doing it?
Thats a stupid question, because emotionalizing the issue does not really make a very good statement.
BTW I am NOT trying to shift this thread into an abortion debate.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
