But be prepared for other people to feel differently, not call it a living child (especially since it's incapable of developing and "living" outside the mother), and wanting the option of removing it before it develops into the last stages of the embryogenesis process.That 10-year old kid that needs a lung machine isn't "living" either. ;)
He has, however, been born full term (well, if lung problems is the issue, then he might have been born prematurely without fully developed lungs) and can, with the aid of a machine, live. You can't do the same with a blastocyst.
Thus, until the agreed upon time window is closed, the parent's rights are still at the forefront since the cluster of cells hasn't yet developed into what would legally constitute a "child."True, sadly the legal process is still schizophrenic on the issue of when "personhood" begins.
I'd like to ask you to please refrain from using the word schizophrenic in this context (I think you've used it once before in this thread already). I know that you're trying to imply that the courts are of "two minds" about the issue and even though the etymology of the word stems from the greek "to split" and "mind" schizophrenia has nothing to do with Split Personality Disorder, although it's a common misconception. I've been diagnosed with Simple Schizophrenia and I know people dear to me that suffers from other forms of schizophrenia, so it's a bit of a touchy subject to me. :-)
I find it contradictory that a lot of "less government" conservatives are supportive of a government ban on abortion, doesn't that run counter to the whole "less personal interference from the government" meme?Well most rational people that believe in less government, recognize that government intervention is needed when Person A starts crapping on Person B's rights. Now certainly a parasitic humanoid lifeform is interfering with the rights of the host organism, but the terminating of the life of the parasitic lifeform could be considered a bigger interference. So it is not so contradictory as you might imagine. Government is best when it only involves itself with Person A crapping on Person B. Abortion involves just such a fundamental issue, thus it is rational for government to be involved in it. Of course, this goes back to the issue of not knowing when the parasitic humanoid lifeform actually gets to be counted as a "person".
By going with that rationalization, then "most rational people that believe in less government" would also be for a complete ban on privately owned hand guns and automatic weapons (i.e. anything besides hunting rifles/shotguns). They have no purpose other than "crapping" on the rights of other people (either directly or by the threat thereof).
Likewise they should have no problems with gay marriage, since these don't "crap" on the rights of anyone.
He has, however, been born full term (well, if lung problems is the issue, then he might have been born prematurely without fully developed lungs) and can, with the aid of a machine, live. You can't do the same with a blastocyst.
My half-joking point was that both require some kind of support mechanism, either mechanical or biological to survive. So we should be careful of writing any definition of "person" that requires that one survive on their own. Even something like just being independent of another person could be an issue when looking conjoined twins, which often can not survive if separated from the other.
I'd like to ask you to please refrain from using the word schizophrenic in this context (I think you've used it once before in this thread already). I know that you're trying to imply that the courts are of "two minds" about the issue and even though the etymology of the word stems from the greek "to split" and "mind" schizophrenia has nothing to do with Split Personality Disorder, although it's a common misconception. I've been diagnosed with Simple Schizophrenia and I know people dear to me that suffers from other forms of schizophrenia, so it's a bit of a touchy subject to me. :-)
Sorry, I will try to use a different term. Though, might I ask that in the future when someone uses the term in a way you dislike that you try to offer an alternative. It is slightly frustrating to be told, "Don't use that word.", but not to be given an alternative. How about the term "dissociative"? Would that be more accurate?
By going with that rationalization, then "most rational people that believe in less government" would also be for a complete ban on privately owned hand guns and automatic weapons (i.e. anything besides hunting rifles/shotguns). They have no purpose other than "crapping" on the rights of other people (either directly or by the threat thereof).
Likewise they should have no problems with gay marriage, since these don't "crap" on the rights of anyone.
Except, (1) guns don't inherently conflict with others rights and (2) most rational people have no problem with self protection. Guns can be used for recreation (hunting as you mention but also target practice) and competition.
As for gay marriage, certainly many who believe in smaller government have no problem with it. Asking for the government to recognize it, is another issue. Many probably feel that the government shouldn't be getting involved in opposite-sex marriages either.
Sorry, I will try to use a different term. Though, might I ask that in the future when someone uses the term in a way you dislike that you try to offer an alternative. It is slightly frustrating to be told, "Don't use that word.", but not to be given an alternative. How about the term "dissociative"? Would that be more accurate?
I didn't mean to sound harsh, is't just a common misconception that hits close to home. :-)
Except, (1) guns don't inherently conflict with others rights and (2) most rational people have no problem with self protection. Guns can be used for recreation (hunting as you mention but also target practice) and competition.
As for gay marriage, certainly many who believe in smaller government have no problem with it. Asking for the government to recognize it, is another issue. Many probably feel that the government shouldn't be getting involved in opposite-sex marriages either.
(1) The use of them do, however (and what's the point of owning a functioning gun if you can't use it legally).
(2) You don't need a gun for self defense, other mundane tools will do quite nicely (if you need a "weapon" then pepperspray is quite effective).(3) If used recreationally (which still leaves out automatic weapons) then join a club and leave the weapons securely locked away at the range.
Gay marriage - if the government is involved in opposite-sex marriages they should be involved in same-sex marriages. I think there's a generally broad consensus around here (gathered from numerous posts) that the best solution would be to divorce (pardon the pun) the religious act from the civil function. However, that's not the current case, hence why people of the aforementioned persuasion should have no problem supporting same-sex marriages based on the premise you suggested.
When life begins is clearly contentious. Nothing new there. And that's exactly why women should have the right to choose. I think, in the above discussion, both sides have more or less admitted that they can see others side's point of view, they just don't agree. So, we do what we normally do in a liberal (as in free) society: we allow the individual to choose, while putting restrictions on that choice such that more radical views are out of scope. That is exactly how modern abortion law is written, more or less.
Personally, I'm anti-abortion. I would never want someone I know to get an abortion, and I would strongly consul them against it, no matter what stage of the pregnancy they were at (well, past implantation in the uterine wall). But I recognize that I have no particularly good way to discern when life really begins, that opinions differ. And that I am a man. It's never a decision I will never have to face personally, as I am biologically incapable. And I think that counts for a lot.
So, when it comes up for a vote, I vote for some restrictions, against others, but never to outlaw. The would be enforcing my views on others in a situation where I believe there is reasonable disagreement. That would be anti-democratic.
Our views on state as power and violence are doubtless an unbridgeable gulf. I can't imagine any argument that would make me believe other wise. If one disobeys the dictates of the state the state uses violence to take your property, imprison or kill you. I'm not sure what you suggest the alternative is. Obviously this leads to a fundamental difference in what we believe government is permitted to do.All I am saying is that either you learn to build a state that is seen to be representative, or you stay pissed off forever at being "forced" not to do things. People will always organize, be it at the local level (which we both agree we prefer), or a larger state or national level. To believe otherwise is to discount the social nature of humans. As such, it's rather important we figure out how to build social structures that are minimally coercive. There will never be complete agreement on what that means, but it is clear preferable to have structure close and local such that it is controllable, rather than far away. On that we agree.
My suggestion was to start building such structures, rather than endlessly b@~#@ing about Washington. That is all. There are anarchists that do this, and most of them are incorrectly written off by libertarians (and the mainstream) as hippies, which is both ideologically wrong and, frankly, offensive. Not saying you do that, but that's how your argumentation is coming across.
My second point is that I separate the here and now from the ideal future. I don't see how making millions of people's lives horrid is a good way to get from here to there. It's also completely unnecessary if we weren't all so set on destroying the government before alternative means of organization are in place.
I am trying to build a state that is more representative. I'm not advocating a stateless society, but I remain convinced that the state is force, and there are a very limited number of cases where the use of that force is acceptable. I don't see protesting a corrupt state and building alternative to be an either/or proposition.
I will never stop protesting the state when the state is unjust, corrupt and oppressive. I do quite a bit to build structures and networks to help people around me, but the state frequently works at cross purpose to that very thing. For example I have had a friend with a terminal illness living with me for over a year. he may live for many more years, but one of the most effective therapies for his condition is illegal in the US, but it's widely used in Europe. I don't see this as the government helping, but I do what I can for my friend.
Good for people who want to voluntarily form co-ops communes or what have you. The US government still frequently interferes in these voluntary associations. I fail to see how my argumentation suggests that I am opposed to or dismissive of such free associations.
I never said that my opposition to federal charity meant that I would make it disappear overnight if I could. I understand that tens of millions have been made dependent on it, and most of them have paid something into it. It took generations to create the current level of dependency. It will not be quick to reverse in an orderly fashion. However if the whole system collapses into insolvency it will be ugly, and I think we are much closer to a fiscal disaster than most of us in the US realize.
I will try to respond to more of your posts in better detail as my time allows. I don't want you to think I'm dismissing or ignoring your arguments. I just have some RL issues on my plate right now.
If taking of an innocent human life is murder, and murders should be given the death penalty, then whom do we execute for a wrongful execution? Because I assure you, we have executed people wrongly, and will again. In what way are those responsible not murders? The act was certainly premeditated.
As for the argument that we should murder criminals because it's the best practical alternative is...undeserving of the name. The state is justified in preemptive murder because of a high rate of recidivism? Ridiculous. We simply can't hold people responsible FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE because we deem it statistically likely that they'll do it. It's unworthy of you, Kirth.
I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm curious who in the US has been executed wrongly.
I presume you mean executed and then exonerated or exculpatory evidence was found.
Except, (1) guns don't inherently conflict with others rights and (2) most rational people have no problem with self protection. Guns can be used for recreation (hunting as you mention but also target practice) and competition.
As for gay marriage, certainly many who believe in smaller government have no problem with it. Asking for the government to recognize it, is another issue. Many probably feel that the government shouldn't be getting involved in opposite-sex marriages either.
(1) The use of them do, however (and what's the point of owning a functioning gun if you can't use it legally).
(2) You don't need a gun for self defense, other mundane tools will do quite nicely (if you need a "weapon" then pepperspray is quite effective).(3) If used recreationally (which still leaves out automatic weapons) then join a club and leave the weapons securely locked away at the range.
Okay, here's something I'd like to get some info from conservatives on. Guns. Big issue about that nowadays, although I'm thinking it's an issue just about every day of every year since...well, since before I was born. What types of guns should be legal or illegal? Even the most gun-loving zealot does not want to see certain types of weapons in the hands of criminals(who they always feel will be the only ones with guns should gun control zealots have their way). Me, I'm in favor of gun control, but I think that very topic has spiraled so very far out of control and scope that even I'm not sure what gun control is anymore. What rules and regulations should concern these weapons? And please, don't say "no more than what we already have" or something similarly cryptic. Detail your perfect gun control(or uncontrolled) world.
Me, I just want to be able to carry a shikomizue or jitte without a problem with the cops.
When life begins is clearly contentious.
To be clear, when "life" begins is not contentious. There are pretty clear biological requirements for something to be considered "alive". And it is pretty clear that a parasitic humanoid lifeform is alive. The issue isn't when life begins, the issue is when "personhood" begins.
(1) The use of them do, however (and what's the point of owning a functioning gun if you can't use it legally).
That is interesting, because I've know people that have owned guns almost the entire lives and not had them once conflict with another person's rights. So I don't think there is anything inherent in a gun that forces it to conflict with someone else's rights.
(2) You don't need a gun for self defense, other mundane tools will do quite nicely (if you need a "weapon" then pepperspray is quite effective).
You are right, guns aren't the only means of self defense, that doesn't mean they are not an effect means.
==off-topic a bit== I once heard that the invention of a rapid reload type of weapon (I don't recall the exact type at the moment), saved more lives during war than previous weapons. That was because it allowed people to hold more prisoners with fewer guards. Thus made taking prisoners more feasible.
(3) If used recreationally (which still leaves out automatic weapons) then join a club and leave the weapons securely locked away at the range.
So if I play golf, I should have to lock my golf clubs at the country club. If I play tennis, I should have to lock up my racket at the rec center. If I play baseball, ... You see my point I hope, all of those involve items that, as you wisely point out in #2, can be used as weapons. So why would you require guns to be treated differently, unless you had an inherent bias against them to begin with.
I'm going to disagree with you here. I mean sure there have always been a middle class but historically its been very small. Social Welfare states are actually extremely good at creating a middle class. They take money from the well off and pump it into programs that make it easier for the poor to climb out of poverty. A State like Denmark, (probably the highest taxed state on the planet) also has a huge middle class. I suspect if you look at economic history you'll find that there is a very strong correlation between the creation of programs indicative of a welfare state and the rise of the middle class as a larger percentage of the population. My understanding is you can do the reverse as well. If you eliminate social programs in favour of tax cuts you see a rise in income disparity and a shrinking middle class as a percentage of the population as a whole.We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep.Also, the middle class. :-)Are you saying the middle class would not exist without social welfare?
Seriously?! I'm not trying to be obtuse here,but I really don't follow your argument. I think the middle class probably pre-existed massive socialist welfare states.
I don't know about the European socialist democracies, but social spending in the US has risen enormously. I believe non-discretionary spending now exceeds discretionary spending on the federal level, but the middle class continues to contract. My experience with friend in some government systems is that those same systems trap the poor in poverty by punishing every effort to find a better life.
I'll try to find some citations when time allows.
Okay, here's something I'd like to get some info from conservatives on. Guns.
I hate to say this yet again, but personally I think "it depends." Canada has stricter gun control than the U.S. by far and roughly 1/10 the murder rate. Obviously something is working there for them -- whether it's gun control or something else (too cold to shoot each other?), I have no idea. But firearms are already widespread here in Texas -- not only would people not give them up, but the people would be absolutely right to refuse to do so. Given the current ubiquitousness of firearms here, it would be downright suicidal to be the only person in the state without one. Gun control at this point, in this place, would be criminally stupid. So... OK for Canada, not OK for Texas? I think you'd have to make a case-by-case basis for each location, also factoring in how they relate to one another (almost all of the guns that are used for murders in Canada were originally obtained legally in the U.S., for example).
So if I play golf, I should have to lock my golf clubs at the country club. If I play tennis, I should have to lock up my racket at the rec center. If I play baseball, ... You see my point I hope, all of those involve items that, as you wisely point out in #2, can be used as weapons. So why would you require guns to be treated differently, unless you had an inherent bias against them to begin with.
I'm not advocating for gun control in most places, but I do disagree with your point here. It takes determination, absolute certainty, and downright balls to beat someone to death with a club. Most people flat-out can't do it, no matter what the provocation. Pulling a trigger, on the other hand, is easy, and takes almost nothing.
Fair enough, but if one believes the government is essentially not capable of doing a good job, why would the government be any better at the regulation of criminal activity, and why should the government have the most absolute power possible in that situation (as opposed to, say, enough power to regulate criminals, with less possibility of executing innocents)? I'm perfectly happy with no parole for certain offenses - if at least it gives the falsely convicted a chance to be redeemed, while keeping the rightly convicted behind bars.Maybe you think this feeds into the rate of false convictions, and so the government would have to be incompetent enough to outweigh the benefit of executing the actually guilty?
As for your specific example, please think of the children - once seen, naked clowns on the beach can't be unseen! :)
And thank you also for being such a reasonable contributor to the discussion - it is nice when it's civil!
Dear God, the naked clowns....
But seriously, I think the issue with this viewpoint is that it starts off assuming that the government is so utterly incompetent that it can't do anything right, even by accident. I'm leery of trotting out the wooden man fallacy, but I think it might apply here- it's so far to one sided it doesn't allow for any type of opposition. Am I misunderstanding something or coming in at the wrong part of the argument?
I'm trying to understand how someone can believe in small government (of the sort that they wouldn't trust to run a health care system, or believe would be instituting "death panels" to quote Sarah Palin), while at the same time trusting the government with something like the death penalty.
I'm wondering if Kirth, and maybe others, believe that the rate of false executions wouldn't outweigh the rate of goodness that accrues due to correct executions (on that view, not mine) - that is, even if the government can't be trusted to run health care, it wouldn't screw up...
This argument is what actually changed my position on the death penalty. I don't have a moral quandary with government using force to defend (or avenge) the rights of its citizens. On the other hand I don't trust the government to do much of anything without waste and fraud, so I don't trust the government with the death penalty.
Some my consider that libertarian as opposed to conservative, but I have always considered the two as largely synonymous.
I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm curious who in the US has been executed wrongly.I presume you mean executed and then exonerated or exculpatory evidence was found.
Well, there's this guy, for one.
But my comment was made with respect to preemptive executions: That is, execution for crimes that both sides admits haven't been committed, but are rather merely likely to occur. Kirth is (if I understand him correctly) advocating executing people with a high likelihood of committing violent crimes in the future.
As it happens, though, I think a serious discussion of the death penalty has to allow that some people are going to be executed by mistake. That isn't the question; the question is, is it still worth it?
Likewise (at the risk of pulling a Godwin), history has taught us that, in the face of a government small enough to constitute civil anarchy, citizens inevitably overreact and put into power an extreme authoritarian regime -- and a large government with absolute power is worse than a large, mostly ineffectual one.But you lost me at the end here though - which government is pro-death penalty?
What I was trying to emphasize is that my being generally in favor of "smaller" government should not be in any way construed to mean I'm in favor of "no" government. The Weimar Republic in my family homeland was so weak it really wasn't much of a government at all, and the people wanted stability and prosperity above all else, paving the way for the fascists to take over (thus the Godwin warning). That's a case of a too-small government directly contributing to a too-strong one to coming into power. And those guys were pro-death as can be (ovens, even), forcing my grandfather to flee.
** spoiler omitted **
It sounds like I might like your friends.
** spoiler omitted **Maybe it is because of things like this. :D
** spoiler omitted **
LOL!
LOL!** spoiler omitted **Maybe it is because of things like this. :D
** spoiler omitted **
That was hilarious!
EDIT: I own the actual movie that was taken from; excellent movie.
So if I play golf, I should have to lock my golf clubs at the country club. If I play tennis, I should have to lock up my racket at the rec center. If I play baseball, ... You see my point I hope, all of those involve items that, as you wisely point out in #2, can be used as weapons. So why would you require guns to be treated differently, unless you had an inherent bias against them to begin with.I'm not advocating for gun control in most places, but I do disagree with your point here. It takes determination, absolute certainty, and downright balls to beat someone to death with a club. Most people flat-out can't do it, no matter what the provocation. Pulling a trigger, on the other hand, is easy, and takes almost nothing.
Killing people or animals with firearms is a bit more challenging than just pulling the trigger.
Nit picking aside though the fact that a firearm allows a weak person to kill a strong one is one of the best arguments against restricting the means to self defense.
Okay, here's something I'd like to get some info from conservatives on. Guns. Big issue about that nowadays, although I'm thinking it's an issue just about every day of every year since...well, since before I was born. What types of guns should be legal or illegal? Even the most gun-loving zealot does not want to see certain types of weapons in the hands of criminals(who they always feel will be the only ones with guns should gun control zealots have their way). Me, I'm in favor of gun control, but I think that very topic has spiraled so very far out of control and scope that even I'm not sure what gun control is anymore. What rules and regulations should concern these weapons? And please, don't say "no more than what we already have" or something similarly cryptic. Detail your perfect gun control(or uncontrolled) world.
Me, I just want to be able to carry a shikomizue or jitte without a problem with the cops.
Self defense is a fundamental human right. The means to self defense from the state or others are a fundamental human right.
If I want a tank I should be able to buy one.
1. Killing people or animals with firearms is a bit more challenging than just pulling the trigger.
2. Nit picking aside though the fact that a firearm allows a weak person to kill a strong one is one of the best arguments against restricting the means to self defense.
1. Yes, it is... but not compared with beating them to death with a blunt instrument. Not by a long shot. (Especially if you're in a stand plunking them behind the ear while they stand there and eat... that's why I like bow hunting, on the ground.)
2. Actually, I agree with you on this point. Although I'd personally be one of the safest people I know if firearms didn't exist, my wife would be near-helpless (instead of the holy terror she is!)
I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm curious who in the US has been executed wrongly.I presume you mean executed and then exonerated or exculpatory evidence was found.
Well, there's this guy, for one.
But my comment was made with respect to preemptive executions: That is, execution for crimes that both sides admits haven't been committed, but are rather merely likely to occur. Kirth is (if I understand him correctly) advocating executing people with a high likelihood of committing violent crimes in the future.
As it happens, though, I think a serious discussion of the death penalty has to allow that some people are going to be executed by mistake. That isn't the question; the question is, is it still worth it?
Good link. Thanks!
... Although I'd personally be one of the safest people I know if firearms didn't exist...
[out of synch with lip movements]Finally we meet. Your kung-fu is good, but can you do this?[/out of synch with lip movements]
<Kruelaid flips up into the willowy tops of a bamboo grove.>
1. Killing people or animals with firearms is a bit more challenging than just pulling the trigger.
2. Nit picking aside though the fact that a firearm allows a weak person to kill a strong one is one of the best arguments against restricting the means to self defense.
1. Yes, it is... but not compared with beating them to death with a blunt instrument. Not by a long shot. (Especially if you're in a stand plunking them behind the ear while they stand there and eat... that's why I like bow hunting, on the ground.)
2. Actually, I agree with you on this point. Although I'd personally be one of the safest people I know if firearms didn't exist, my wife would be near-helpless (instead of the holy terror she is!)
I am not exactly gifted with a bow so I won't use one to to hunt, but I have enjoyed handgun hunting here in CO. I still want to take an Elk with a hand gun.
I like watching Diane (my SO) shoot as well. She's something to see with the M4 and the .357. She's the one in the white coat in my pics. I get a kick out of how naturally shooting comes to a lot of women. I'm helping my daughter to get her CC permit soon.
But my comment was made with respect to preemptive executions: That is, execution for crimes that both sides admits haven't been committed, but are rather merely likely to occur. Kirth is (if I understand him correctly) advocating executing people with a high likelihood of committing violent crimes in the future.
No. I am advocating that, for people WHO HAVE ALREADY RAPED OR MURDERED SOMEONE, evidence indicates that they are likely to do so again if released. Therefore, murdering them is evil, but allowing them to go out and destroy the lives of two or three more people is worse. Even if half of them don't do so, you still end up with more murdered people, total, by letting them go.
Yes, it's pre-emptive in a sense, but it's applied ONLY to people who have already done so, and thus demonstrated their willingness beyond the shadow of a doubt. I do NOT advocate saying things like, "That guy Billy is creepy because he plays D&D, let's execute him in case he turns out to be a murderer."
Thus, any claim that I'm advocating execution for crimes that haven't been committed might be considered partly true in a very narrow sense, but is completely misleading, as well as being categorically false overall.
I get a kick out of how naturally shooting comes to a lot of women.
I read somewhere that (short of things like the Camp Perry Wimbledon invitational skill level, which almost no one has), women in general are almost universally better shots than men, all things being equal (vision, practice). Something about how the hand-eye coordination works. Wish I could find the reference now.
I get a kick out of how naturally shooting comes to a lot of women.I read somewhere that (short of things like the Wimbledon Marine invitational skill level, which almost no one has), women in general are almost universally better shots than men, all things being equal (vision, practice). Something about how the hand-eye coordination works. Wish I could find the reference now.
That tends to match my experience, and I've trained a lot of women and kids to shoot.
|
But my comment was made with respect to preemptive executions: That is, execution for crimes that both sides admits haven't been committed, but are rather merely likely to occur. Kirth is (if I understand him correctly) advocating executing people with a high likelihood of committing violent crimes in the future.No. I am advocating that, for people WHO HAVE ALREADY RAPED OR MURDERED SOMEONE, evidence indicates that they are likely to do so again if released. Therefore, murdering them is evil, but allowing them to go out and destroy the lives of two or three more people is worse. Even if half of them don't do so, you still end up with more murdered people, total, by letting them go.
Yes, it's pre-emptive in a sense, but it's applied ONLY to people who have already done so, and thus demonstrated their willingness beyond the shadow of a doubt. I do NOT advocate saying things like, "That guy Billy is creepy because he plays D&D, let's execute him in case he turns out to be a murderer."
Thus, any claim that I'm advocating execution for crimes that haven't been committed might be considered partly true in a very narrow sense, but is completely misleading, as well as being categorically false overall.
Kirth,
And what about people like the man in the UK who spawned a whole thread about how he was right to beat a burglar half to death (and has now had his sentence reduced to a suspended sentence)? Execute or no if he'd actually killed the guy? Or the woman in the UK who killed her crippled, brain-damaged and permanently in pain son as a mercy killing? Is she a threat to the rest of the public? Execute or not?It's not as easy as you make it seem, even if you're not making it seem all that easy. Universal punishments tend to be a bad idea. You might be able to convince me that the death penalty should be an option (I think it unlikely as there are practical problems I have with it regardless of the moral 'cruel and unusual' part), but it shouldn't be a requirement.
|
|
When life begins is clearly contentious.To be clear, when "life" begins is not contentious. There are pretty clear biological requirements for something to be considered "alive". And it is pretty clear that a parasitic humanoid lifeform is alive. The issue isn't when life begins, the issue is when "personhood" begins.
Pres Man,
Are you equally opposed to IVF given the colossal number of fertilised emryoes that are destroyed as part of the process? If not, why not? I ask as most people who are 'pro-life' are not opposed to this and I can't fathom why. I hope you can help me understand the position.
... Although I'd personally be one of the safest people I know if firearms didn't exist...[out of synch with lip movements]Finally we meet. Your kung-fu is good, but can you do this?[/out of synch with lip movements]
<Kruelaid flips up into the willowy tops of a bamboo grove.>
I believe outside of restricting the most destructive of firearms (i.e. no RPGs or gatling guns) that gun control should be by popular vote on a city by city basis ideally, or a county by county basis more realistically.
If town A wants to let everyone carry a concealed fire arm, and town B doesn’t want any privately owned fire arms, then so be it. You want a gun and live in town B? Move to town A. Your gun toting neighbors in town A make you nervous? Move to town B. Might be a pain in the ass, but it beats having to leave an entire state that has gun laws you don’t agree with.
Now that aside, I do believe that all guns should have to be registered, and background checks required on all people trying purchasing a gun. I know some people think that a gun should be as easy to acquire as a pack of cigarettes from the liquor store. I don’t agree with these people. You are purchasing a deadly weapon. Not a golf club that could be used as a deadly weapon. The item you are purchasing was designed to kill things. I don’t care if you never plan to use this gun for anything but shooting at a range, you can wait an extra week while we make sure you aren’t a crazy person who will start shooting up the neighborhood should you forget to take your meds for the day.
As it happens, though, I think a serious discussion of the death penalty has to allow that some people are going to be executed by mistake. That isn't the question; the question is, is it still worth it?
For me, no.
No. I am advocating that, for people WHO HAVE ALREADY RAPED OR MURDERED SOMEONE, evidence indicates that they are likely to do so again if released. Therefore, murdering them is evil, but allowing them to go out and destroy the lives of two or three more people is worse. Even if half of them don't do so, you still end up with more murdered people, total, by letting them go.
I can't quite buy into this. It penalizes an individual for a group statistic. Let's say that the rate is 80% of people in jail for murder actually kill again when released.
If that means that each individual is 80% likely to kill, then it strikes me that it's not a very strong basis by which to execute someone for whom there is a 20% chance of committing no further crime.
If it means that 80 individuals out of 100 have a 100% chance of attempting to kill again, and 20 individuals have a 0% chance, then unless you can predict who is who, you're asking the state to murder 20 essentially innocent people (people who have paid for their prior crime according to the law).
I understand your argument that killing 20 innocent people to save 80 future victims may provide greater benefit in terms of lives saved, but I think the calculation should be that the state kills 100 to save 80, which seems out of balance to me.
My other objection is that the averages are built up out of prior observations, and may not remain constant. There is always hope that the rate of recidivism can change over time. Of course, it could get worse too, but I'd rather be an optimist. There is no guarantee that any particular person will try to kill again, or that the potential victim will actually be killed, or maybe they fight back and kill their attacker, or may themselves be a serial killer worthy of death, etc. There are a lot of variables that could influence recidivism rates (and the balance of the equation of the greater good) - to assume that they will remain constant and then kill people pre-emptively doesn't seem like the best solution to me.
I think it also reduces the humanity of those convicted of a crime, by giving them no chance of redemption. I'm actually not a christian, but perhaps I agree that everyone should have the opportunity to better themselves.
Kirth,
1. And what about people like the man in the UK who spawned a whole thread about how he was right to beat a burglar half to death (and has now had his sentence reduced to a suspended sentence)? Execute or no if he'd actually killed the guy?
2. Or the woman in the UK who killed her crippled, brain-damaged and permanently in pain son as a mercy killing? Is she a threat to the rest of the public? Execute or not?
3. Universal punishments tend to be a bad idea.
Paul,
1. I wasn't too sympathetic to that guy, as you'll recall. The more I read about the whole thing, the more it seemed like he was just aching for a chance to do something like that, and finally got an excuse. "I wasn't involved," he says. Yeah, right. However, see point 3, below, if the jury disagrees.2. That fits into the whole "quality vs. quantity" thing. Personally, I have no problem with assisted suicide. I'd want her to do the same thing for me. I'm unashamedly not part of the "culture of life," whatever that is.
3. I actually strongly agree with you here, although I've been talking in absolutes for the sake of simplicity. There should always be a chance for the jury to apply extenuating circumstances or something similar. Mandatory sentences are what turn people who pee in their backyards into "registered sex offenders." They normally don't serve justice at all, but only prevent useful solutions.
|
|
Kirth,
1. And what about people like the man in the UK who spawned a whole thread about how he was right to beat a burglar half to death (and has now had his sentence reduced to a suspended sentence)? Execute or no if he'd actually killed the guy?
2. Or the woman in the UK who killed her crippled, brain-damaged and permanently in pain son as a mercy killing? Is she a threat to the rest of the public? Execute or not?
3. Universal punishments tend to be a bad idea.Paul,
1. I wasn't too sympathetic to that guy, as you'll recall. The more I read about the whole thing, the more it seemed like he was just aching for a chance to do something like that, and finally got an excuse. "I wasn't involved," he says. Yeah, right. However, see point 3, below, if the jury disagrees.
2. That fits into the whole "quality vs. quantity" thing. Personally, I have no problem with assisted suicide. I'd want her to do the same thing for me. I'm unashamedly not part of the "culture of life," whatever that is.
3. I actually strongly agree with you here, although I've been talking in absolutes for the sake of simplicity. There should always be a chance for the jury to apply extenuating circumstances or something similar. Mandatory sentences are what turn people who pee in their backyards into "registered sex offenders." They normally don't serve justice at all, but only prevent useful solutions.
Kirth,
Number two was included as she was convicted of murder here this week. just to find another example of a murderer who isn't much threat to the general public and to argue against the absolute point you were making. Just clarification rather than trying to batter the point any more.
Actually that approach is part of the present problem. States with lax gun control laws host gun fairs in which guns are bought with little to no control or tracking and are then taken back and sold under the table in states like New York with stricter gun control laws.I believe outside of restricting the most destructive of firearms (i.e. no RPGs or gatling guns) that gun control should be by popular vote on a city by city basis ideally, or a county by county basis more realistically.
As I said, I believe they should be tracked everywhere. Which guns are allowed however should be a local decision.
As I said, I believe they should be tracked everywhere. Which guns are allowed however should be a local decision.Actually that approach is part of the present problem. States with lax gun control laws host gun fairs in which guns are bought with little to no control or tracking and are then taken back and sold under the table in states like New York with stricter gun control laws.I believe outside of restricting the most destructive of firearms (i.e. no RPGs or gatling guns) that gun control should be by popular vote on a city by city basis ideally, or a county by county basis more realistically.
I just can't get behind the local decision part. To me it's either all or nothing. Most of this is because I am a NYer and I see what happens around here with guns, both legal and not. In many cases, gun running is just WAY too tempting for the desperate. You're talking about a criminal enterprise with no overhead, low visibility, and depending on the circumstances may not even be illegal. If local laws are to play a role, then they should certainly have some type of answer to this type of situation.
When life begins is clearly contentious.To be clear, when "life" begins is not contentious. There are pretty clear biological requirements for something to be considered "alive". And it is pretty clear that a parasitic humanoid lifeform is alive. The issue isn't when life begins, the issue is when "personhood" begins.
You're absolutely right. It was a poor choice of words; sorry if the meaning wasn't clear.
I just can't get behind the local decision part. To me it's either all or nothing. Most of this is because I am a NYer and I see what happens around here with guns, both legal and not. In many cases, gun running is just WAY too tempting for the desperate. You're talking about a criminal enterprise with no overhead, low visibility, and depending on the circumstances may not even be illegal. If local laws are to play a role, then they should certainly have some type of answer to this type of situation.As I said, I believe they should be tracked everywhere. Which guns are allowed however should be a local decision.Actually that approach is part of the present problem. States with lax gun control laws host gun fairs in which guns are bought with little to no control or tracking and are then taken back and sold under the table in states like New York with stricter gun control laws.I believe outside of restricting the most destructive of firearms (i.e. no RPGs or gatling guns) that gun control should be by popular vote on a city by city basis ideally, or a county by county basis more realistically.
Meh, you’re entitled your opinion. I fail to see how gun running would be any more prominent if certain cities in a state let you have guns and others didn’t over if the entire state didn’t allow guns. If someone wants to own a gun and they live in a town that doesn’t allow them they might move to another near by town which does. If the entire state doesn’t allow guns they aren’t going to uproot their entire lives in order to own a gun, and they are very likely to look for less than legal ways to obtain one.
Regardless, the whole gun thing is pretty low on my radar as far as political issues go. I live in California. Our gun laws are pretty strict, and I’m perfectly fine with them. I’ve got my handgun, and I have no problem with the steps I had to go though to get it. If some politician is running for office and has a similar stance to mine on most issues, but believes assault weapons should be banned nation wide I will still vote for him. They’re already banned in California, why in the hell should I care if some redneck in Kansas isn’t allowed to hunt deer with an AK-47 anymore?
Just to find another example of a murderer who isn't much threat to the general public and to argue against the absolute point you were making.
Understood. As I (belatedly) pointed out, I don't actually go in for absolute sentencing requirements, although I can see how the phrasing of some of the earlier posts would lead one to that conclusion.
The problem is not the State itself, because the State in it's proper role is the counter balance to the Corporation which with no restrictions is Force unlimited. (read some of the histories of Corporate sponsored violence against labor movements sometime) The problem is when the State becomes subservient to the Corporate sphere. That's when you have Fascism, and that's been an increasing trend in America these past few decades. The creation of the Corporation as a "Super Person" as Ralph Nader describes it is problematic in a democratic society.I am trying to build a state that is more representative. I'm not advocating a stateless society, but I remain convinced that the state is force, and there are a very limited number of cases where the use of that force is acceptable. I don't see protesting a corrupt state and building alternative to be an either/or proposition.
I will never stop protesting the state when the state is unjust, corrupt and oppressive. I do quite a bit to build structures and networks to help people around me, but the state frequently works at cross purpose to that very thing. For example I have had a friend with a terminal illness living with me for over a year. he may live for many more years, but one of the most effective therapies for his condition is illegal in the US, but it's widely used in Europe. I don't see this as the government helping, but I do what I can for my friend.
We would disagree about the proper role of the state and to some degree the notion of the corporation as a super person. I'm familiar with the history of corporate and government violence against labor unions. However, I must agree with the observation that the current model of corporate and government interaction smacks of fascism to me. I believe this is the predictable outcome of large and invasive government. If it's more cost effective to lobby for contracting or regulatory advantage rather than provide a superior good or service then we invite corruption on a massive scale. I believe we have reached that point in the US.
Actually part of the problem in this thread is the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" are more rallying points or calls to insult rather than useful terms. They serve to polarise discussion rather than describe it.
In the days of Kenneth Gailbraith for instance the leading conservative thought at the time would have considered the outsize pay of CEO's to be a monstrous aberration to the ideals of fiscal conservative buisness policy. They also would have objected to running up public debt in order to fund a war of opportunity and a massive tax cut at the same time.
What we have to day would not have been called conservative in Gailbraith's time. We could call it neo-conservativism but again that only serves the purpose of those who wish to simply drown out discussion altogether.
I concur that the nomenclature has become very blurry. I consider myself a constitutional conservative, but my fellow republicans here in El Paso county often accuse me of being an anarchist. Part of the problem is seeing the political spectrum on a left right line; I reject this model of mapping political positions.
When life begins is clearly contentious.To be clear, when "life" begins is not contentious. There are pretty clear biological requirements for something to be considered "alive". And it is pretty clear that a parasitic humanoid lifeform is alive. The issue isn't when life begins, the issue is when "personhood" begins.Pres Man,
Are you equally opposed to IVF given the colossal number of fertilised emryoes that are destroyed as part of the process? If not, why not? I ask as most people who are 'pro-life' are not opposed to this and I can't fathom why. I hope you can help me understand the position.
Not really, because I'm not really as pro-life as I think you believe I am. Which should have been pretty obvious by my use of phrases like, "parasitic humanoid lifeform" (something most extreme pro-lifers would be incessed by).
You'll notice in many of my previous comments, I was complaining about how the laws, in the US at least, are "dissociative" in that in some cases unborn parasitic humanoid lifeforms are considered "person"s and in some cases they are not. I wish that we would come to a set legal viewpoint.
Though, IVF is one area that US medicine could learn from our European friends. In some european countries, instead of inserting 5 embryos at one time, they implant one and if it doesn't take, then implant another the next month, and they do that for 5 months or until one takes. That way you don't have those crazy octo-mon situations and the women/families don't have to be put into a position to decide whether to risk a large birth number or abort some of the lifeforms to give others a better chance.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Actually that approach is part of the present problem. States with lax gun control laws host gun fairs in which guns are bought with little to no control or tracking and are then taken back and sold under the table in states like New York with stricter gun control laws.I believe outside of restricting the most destructive of firearms (i.e. no RPGs or gatling guns) that gun control should be by popular vote on a city by city basis ideally, or a county by county basis more realistically.
And citizens who are able to legally obtain and carry firearms in one place are forced to extensively research local gun laws anywhere they go in order to avoid becoming criminals merely by virtue of, say, driving through some place with more restrictive gun laws. State concealed carry reciprocity laws help, but they don't solve the basic issue that 2nd Amendment rights are seen as mutable rather than absolute in many jurisdictions.
But my comment was made with respect to preemptive executions: That is, execution for crimes that both sides admits haven't been committed, but are rather merely likely to occur. Kirth is (if I understand him correctly) advocating executing people with a high likelihood of committing violent crimes in the future.No. I am advocating that, for people WHO HAVE ALREADY RAPED OR MURDERED SOMEONE, evidence indicates that they are likely to do so again if released. Therefore, murdering them is evil, but allowing them to go out and destroy the lives of two or three more people is worse. Even if half of them don't do so, you still end up with more murdered people, total, by letting them go.
Yes, it's pre-emptive in a sense, but it's applied ONLY to people who have already done so, and thus demonstrated their willingness beyond the shadow of a doubt. I do NOT advocate saying things like, "That guy Billy is creepy because he plays D&D, let's execute him in case he turns out to be a murderer."
Thus, any claim that I'm advocating execution for crimes that haven't been committed might be considered partly true in a very narrow sense, but is completely misleading, as well as being categorically false overall.
The fact that these people committed a crime (say murder) is logically distinct from your "greatest good for the most people" argument. Either we're killing them to punish them for what they've done (murder), or we're killing them to prevent them from doing it again. You can say we're doing both, but that doesn't strengthen either argument; the reasons remain distinct. That is, if you wish to justify execution based on preventing future crimes, then that justification must stand on it's own; we can't say "plus he had it coming."
I'm curious: Do we agree that just because 80% of the members of a group have a trait doesn't mean that a given member of the group is 80% likely to have the trait? If so, since we can't tell the would-be repeat offenders from the others, you're advocating killing everyone in the group, arguing that society as a whole would be better off. Do I understand your position correctly?
The sort of calculus you're performing wreaks all sorts of havoc. For example, how do you feel about forced sterilization for people likely (say 50% likely; Autosomal dominant inheritance) to pass on a debilitating genetic disease? The sort of disease that guarantees the victim will suffer horribly and die young, all while costing society hundreds of thousands of dollars? Dollars which could have prevented starvation and communicable disease in hundreds of citizens of poor nations? Such a policy seems to fulfill your "most good for the most people" criteria.
What about forced organ donation? If there is a 90% chance to save five or more lives for people on organ donation lists by killing someone (and, quite literally, taking their "stuff" =D), doesn't that also meet your criteria?
And citizens who are able to legally obtain and carry firearms in one place are forced to extensively research local gun laws anywhere they go in order to avoid becoming criminals merely by virtue of, say, driving through some place with more restrictive gun laws. State concealed carry reciprocity laws help, but they don't solve the basic issue that 2nd Amendment rights are seen as mutable rather than absolute in many jurisdictions.
Honestly, I've never seen how or why states feel like they can ban firearms. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't see anything about concealed weapons, or WMDS, but other than that the intent seems pretty clear. If you want to get rid of guns (in a legal sense, that is), you have to change the Constitution. If you can't muster the votes to do that, too bad (and no, I don't own a gun. I just think the law is the law in this case).
The fact that these people committed a crime (say murder) is logically distinct from your "greatest good for the most people" argument. Either we're killing them to punish them for what they've done (murder), or we're killing them to prevent them from doing it again. You can say we're doing both, but that doesn't strengthen either argument; the reasons remain distinct. That is, if you wish to justify execution based on preventing future crimes, then that justification must stand on it's own; we can't say "plus he had it coming."
I'm curious: Do we agree that just because 80% of the members of a group have a trait doesn't mean that a given member of the group is 80% likely to have the trait? If so, since we can't tell the would-be repeat offenders from the others, you're advocating killing everyone in the group, arguing that society as a whole would be better off. Do I understand your position correctly?
The sort of calculus you're performing wreaks all sorts of havoc. For example, how do you feel about forced sterilization for people likely (say 50% likely; Autosomal dominant inheritance) to pass on a debilitating genetic disease? The sort of disease that guarantees the victim will suffer horribly and die young, all while costing society hundreds of thousands of dollars? Dollars which could have prevented starvation and communicable disease in hundreds of citizens of poor nations? Such a policy seems to fulfill your "most good for the most people" criteria.
What about forced organ donation? If there is a 90% chance to save five or more lives for people on organ donation lists by killing someone (and, quite literally, taking their "stuff" =D), doesn't that also meet your criteria?
Off topic from the crime and punishment argument, but the latter part of your argument (which I concur with BTW) is one of the reasons I oppose state controlled health care.
I don't agree with Kirth's arguments to the capitol punishment extent, but we already employ some of this calculus in our legal system.
I think Kirth's argumentation would be modified by changing the current harsh realities of people being imprisoned for victimless crimes and prisoners being raped, tortured, brutalized, getting HIV, and being killed while incarcerated.
(at the risk of presuming to put words into Kirth's mouth)