Looks like Tookie got the needle

[FWAxeIbanez]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous No man, again you missed the issue. He can't have a point when there is an obvious logical flaw in his argument. My analogy just served to illustrate that flaw more obviously. Sorry you didn't get it.

 

 

make up your mind, did I miss the issue or are you just disagreeing with what I'm saying?? there is a difference...

 

I don't know what more there is to say, or why you aren't able to understand, but I felt that 17 tubes' post was well put, and your analogy of communism was not one that translated... furthermore I think it was because you were trying too hard to find an analogy that was obviously flawed, so that compared to an analogy that was not actually wrong other than you not agreeing with it, could be lumped together and sidestepped...

 

read: you were playing games...

 

is that clear enough?

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez and I defined the difference between murder and killing... how are you not getting it? I don't think you were the actual individual trying to use them interchangably, but it still applies to your comment against shredhead's post...

 

 

Did shredhead talked about "killing" ? No. Did I use that word in my reply to him ? No. My own argument is "death penalty is murder". I'm glad you defined the difference between murder and killing but it is absolutely unrelated to my exchange with shredhead. So....

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez make up your mind, did I miss the issue or are you just disagreeing with what I'm saying?? there is a difference...

 

 

My mind is made up thank you. I clearly said you missed the issue entirely and I'll repeat it if needed.

 

 

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez I don't know what more there is to say, or why you aren't able to understand, but I felt that 17 tubes' post was well put, and your analogy of communism was not one that translated...

 

 

It doesn't translate for you because you are not getting the logical flaw enclosed in both arguments, which is the of the same kind.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez furthermore I think it was because you were trying too hard to find an analogy that was obviously flawed, so that compared to an analogy that was not actually wrong other than you not agreeing with it, could be lumped together and sidestepped...

 

 

Like I said, it's not about an analogy at all. It's about an obvious logical, rethorical flaw. I just random picked a common argument which featured the same rethorical flaw as 17 tubes' argument.

 

Obviously, you are not getting it all by yourself. Again, look at the 2 arguments and the type of inference that is used. Now, look at the implicit hypothesis that is missing from the 2 arguments to understand how the conclusion cannot be drawn that way.

 

I'll give you further clue. The center hypothesis from 17 tubes' argument is:

"It's the system that is ineffective". It implies (without saying it) that it could be more effective or even perfect. Now that needs to be proven in order to work. As he can't prove it (and it's obviously wrong BTW), the argument is wrong. It's a classic case of wrong inference by induction because too much is assumed.

 

 

 

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez read: you were playing games... is that clear enough?

 

 

It's clear all of that goes over you head.

[FWAxeIbanez]

My own argument is "death penalty is murder".

 

 

ok, seriously man... do I have to hold your hand? maybe you're just as tired as me... but:

 

 

All i see is a bunch of wordplay and oversimplification... I don't feel like getting involved too much, but people who try to say killing is the same as murder are willfully and purposefully distorting the truth to thier own advantage, and should probably realize that if they have to play games like that, maybe they are arguing the wrong thing... you can kill someone on accident, losing control of a car on an icy road and sliding into the lawn where a small child plays... just happened here actually, does that make him a murderer? should he be judged the same way as someone who stakes out the house for a week, knows the parents schedules like the back of his hand and plots accordingly? obviously there are big differences here, requiring different punishments... a government finding a humane way to put down the inhumane after 26 years of trial is only called murder by those with an agenda trying to make use of bad connotations

 

 

Murder is a word laced from its core with ideas of hatred, evil, and most importantly premeditation... Using the word murder to describe the death penalty is just not correct... do you murder your cat when it's euthanized? see what I mean? thats a shallow analogy meant only (and again) to show the difference between killing and murder and not necessarily meant to be applied towards Tookie's situation, so lets just skip the post where I have to explain that... how's that?

 

point being, the Death Penalty is a humane way of removing the inhumane... I agree, it's not a matter of seeing if we can get them to repent and release them into the "wild" again... it's removing the bad eggs...

[FWAxeIbanez]

ok, well I'm a bit dizzy now from the circles i've been chasing you in... arguing with you is pointless, and it's late... I'll let someone else have a crack at it, and maybe after I have some sleep I'll waste some more time on this...

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez ok, seriously man... do I have to hold your hand? maybe you're just as tired as me... but: Murder is a word laced from its core with ideas of hatred, evil, and most importantly premeditation... Using the word murder to describe the death penalty is just not correct... do you murder your cat when it's euthanized? see what I mean? thats a shallow analogy meant only (and again) to show the difference between killing and murder and not necessarily meant to be applied towards Tookie's situation, so lets just skip the post where I have to explain that... how's that? point being, the Death Penalty is a humane way of removing the inhumane... I agree, it's not a matter of seeing if we can get them to repent and release them into the "wild" again... it's removing the bad eggs...

 

 

Interesting. I'll use your own argument to show you how death penalty is murder.

 

You say : "Murder is a word laced from its core with ideas of hatred, evil, and most importantly premeditation..."

 

 

So considering that, how death penalty is murder ? Look at all the proponents of death penalty in this thread. They all advocate it using the old argument "if it was my own child being killed I want the {censored}er killed also etc. etc."

Isn't that hatred ?

 

So a guy is judged and condemned to the death penalty. Then he is put to death. Isn't there premeditation in the process ? Does that murder happen by accident or is it all planned after the judgement ? I'd say premeditation is obvious.

 

About evil now. Despite all the twisted interpretations of it, I'd say our western society definition of evil is largely based on a moral point of view on the christian commandments where it is clearly stated that murdering someone is evil. Following that, seeing there is no logical way to rationalize the use of death penalty in our advanced societies, I'd say it is clearly evil because totally injustified. So in conclusion, death penalty is really murder.

[dissonance]

Originally posted by Primex You americans sucks definitly. But probably that's not a news for ya. The whole world is laughing about the stupid american folk. I would say we practice these methods of killing people some hundred years ago. And thats time were you mentaly live. Good luck.

 

 

Actually you guys tried to exterminate the Jews less than 100 hundred years ago cause you were cry babies about WW1. You are certainly one to talk about executing a murderer and creator of a violent gang... You guys fell in love with Adolf Hitler and you're trying to give us {censored} about Bush?

[FWAxeIbanez]

wow, full of fallacy...

the proponents on this board are not involved in the actual process of his execution, niether is a nationwide vote held to determine the convicts fate... also, this is a pretty lax conversational debate, and not an intricate (and 26 year long) deliberation... big dif... being outspoken and outrageous is only fine when you are basically disconnected from the process, yes?

calling the premeditation of a killer basically the same thing as the process of proving or disproving a convicts case is idiotic at best, but most likely more of an intentional misuse of conotation once again... although the killings are both calculated, they come from completely different frames of mind... it's premeditated in that they formulated a way to end a persons life as painlessly as possible, but it's not in any way the same as a murderer

Following that, seeing there is no logical way to rationalize the use of death penalty in our advanced societies, I'd say it is clearly evil because totally injustified. So in conclusion, death penalty is really murder.

whoah there bud... its not right just because you agree with it... you just argued the small points and jumped headlong over the main argument using a statement just a hair above "because I say it is!"

injustified? no logical way to rationalize the use of the death penalty???? aren't these the meat and potatoes of it all? It's logical to use the death penalty in our society because Killers are dangerous, and in protecting ourselves we must remove them... not give them chance after chance after chance... I'm done with the pissing contest kid, you're blinded by your emotions, close mindedness, and arrogance...

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez wow, full of fallacy... the proponents on this board are not involved in the actual process of his execution, niether is a nationwide vote held to determine the convicts fate... also, this is a pretty lax conversational debate, and not an intricate (and 26 year long) deliberation... big dif... being outspoken and outrageous is only fine when you are basically disconnected from the process, yes? calling the premeditation of a killer basically the same thing as the process of proving or disproving a convicts case is idiotic at best, but most likely more of an intentional misuse of conotation once again... although the killings are both calculated, they come from completely different frames of mind... it's premeditated in that they formulated a way to end a persons life as painlessly as possible, but it's not in any way the same as a murderer

 

 

Fallacy ? I don't think so. Despite your unrelated rambling, isn't there premeditation in death penalty ? Just answer that simple question to check if death penalty fits the definition of murder you kindly gave us a few posts ago. Let's see if you agree with yourself before attacking foolishly other people's point of view. Don't you agree most of the death penalty proponents on this board mostly invoked solely vengeance as a justification and thus are only motivated by hate ?

 

 

Originally posted by FWAxeIbanez whoah there bud... its not right just because you agree with it... you just argued the small points and jumped headlong over the main argument using a statement just a hair above "because I say it is!" injustified? no logical way to rationalize the use of the death penalty???? aren't these the meat and potatoes of it all? It's logical to use the death penalty in our society because Killers are dangerous, and in protecting ourselves we must remove them... not give them chance after chance after chance... I'm done with the pissing contest kid, you're blinded by your emotions, close mindedness, and arrogance...

 

 

I must say I was a bit elliptical in my last post, though it seemed clear to me. I'll gladly precise what I meant :

what did I mean when I said "no logical way to rationalize" ? I was obviously talking within the the moral frame of our western societies. I meant : there is no logical way of rationalizing death penalty when taking in account our western christian based moral principles, unless you twist them to no end. No, it is not the meat and potatoes of the whole argument, but just one side of it. And I'm not a kid. Emotion has nothing to do with it either.

[Duesentrieb]

When I have a look on the death penalty and execution "state-map" of the United States, how comes that

- not all of them use "sentenced to death" ?
- some of them don't execute DP?
- some of them "perform" 30-40% of all US executions?

[FWAxeIbanez]

truth be told be told, I didn't call you a kid as an attack... I'll dive into this new string tomorrow, but to those who instantly take me calling them "kid" as an attack (as it might actually seem, sense it seems pretty condescending without hearing it from my mouth) please realize, where I'm from, it's kinda like saying man, bro, bud, guy, etc...

just to clear that up...

now I'm off to bed, for real this time

[Duesentrieb]

. . . how comes that the murder rate didn't change after "performing" DP again back in 1976/77 ? . . .

[Duesentrieb]

Executed DPs on mother earth, november 2005:

China: 89
Iran: 9
Bagladesh: 1
Pakistan: 7
Saudi-Arabia: 3
Vietnam-N: 2
Jemen: 2
Jordania: 1

US of A: 9

[EvanS]

Originally posted by Duesentrieb Executed DPs on mother earth, november 2005: China: 89 Iran: 9 Bagladesh: 1 Pakistan: 7 Saudi-Arabia: 3 Vietnam-N: 2 Jemen: 2 Jordania: 1 US of A: 9

 

 

Damn! We should all be bashing China, methinks.

 

I wonder if Gary Glitter will be added to that Vietnam list...?

 

89!? Damn.

[Duesentrieb]

Originally posted by EvanS Damn! We should all be bashing China, methinks.

 

Yeah, no problem with that, but I prefer to bash them all.

 

At least the US of A (or certain states of it) stopped to execute children (march 2005 - wow) and mentally ill.

 

So there's still some hope that the US of A will stop this crap one day . . . . .

[snakum]

I would say we practice these methods of killing people some hundred years ago. And thats time were you mentaly live.

I agree with your basic points, however you need to hit a history book, my German brother from another mother. You might be surprised to know that your own country started and lost a world war and executed millions in and out of your own country less than 75 years ago.

I love Germany, by the way. I lived in a little village near Wurzburg called Schnepfenbach for three years, and I was badly homesick for it for the first couple years I came back to the states. Wonderful people ... beautiful country ... but still. I mean DAYUM!

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous My mind is made up thank you. I clearly said you missed the issue entirely and I'll repeat it if needed. It doesn't translate for you because you are not getting the logical flaw enclosed in both arguments, which is the of the same kind. Like I said, it's not about an analogy at all. It's about an obvious logical, rethorical flaw. I just random picked a common argument which featured the same rethorical flaw as 17 tubes' argument. Obviously, you are not getting it all by yourself. Again, look at the 2 arguments and the type of inference that is used. Now, look at the implicit hypothesis that is missing from the 2 arguments to understand how the conclusion cannot be drawn that way. I'll give you further clue. The center hypothesis from 17 tubes' argument is: "It's the system that is ineffective". It implies (without saying it) that it could be more effective or even perfect. Now that needs to be proven in order to work. As he can't prove it (and it's obviously wrong BTW), the argument is wrong. It's a classic case of wrong inference by induction because too much is assumed. It's clear all of that goes over you head.

 

 

Jack..it works both ways dude.

 

FWA said you are reaching and you surely are. You are getting too buried in what you *think* is technical logic jargon.

 

 

What I propose is in no way scientific or logical fact. I never said it was.

 

It is merely my opinion.

 

 

Becuase I can't PROVE it I am wrong?

 

That is not correct. Because I can't PROVE it is a THEORY.

 

 

You MUST "disprove" me...you have to show some eveidence, for me to be wrong.

 

And you can't do that. So, so far I still have...a theory.

 

 

Now, quit being an ass about it.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous That argument of yours is old and wrong at the same time. It's exactly like saying communism isn't wrong, it's the system that is ineffective. Let's try again. Would you agree with that ?

 

 

Jack...who said "communism is wrong"?

 

Communism...in it's perfect state, MAY NOT be wrong.

 

Communism under a flawed regime most certainly is.

 

And so is a justice system.

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes Jack..it works both ways dude. FWA said you are reaching and you surely are. You are getting too buried in what you *think* is technical logic jargon. What I propose is in no way scientific or logical fact. I never said it was. It is merely my opinion. Becuase I can't PROVE it I am wrong? That is not correct. Because I can't PROVE it is a THEORY. You MUST "disprove" me...you have to show some eveidence, for me to be wrong. And you can't do that. So, so far I still have...a theory. Now, quit being an ass about it.

 

 

I can't prove your opinion is wrong obviously, and it's not what I tried to do. I just logically dismantled one of your arguments. No big deal man. If your "theory" is based on that one, it is not logically founded. No big deal either. You are free to be totally illogical. Truth to be told, there is a long way between an opinion and a theory. The former needs no justification at all while the other at least needs to be logical.

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes Jack...who said "communism is wrong"? Communism...in it's perfect state, MAY NOT be wrong. Communism under a flawed regime most certainly is. And so is a justice system.

 

 

Does a "perfect state" exist ? Can it exist ? That's the crux of the question. Think about it.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous Does a "perfect state" exist ? Can it exist ? That's the crux of the question. Think about it.

 

 

Did I say it existed?

 

You are choosing an argument you can win.

 

 

Since you are fond of cross-referencing ideology and logic:

 

 

"Man is imperfect. Therefor he does not exist."

 

 

 

 

See how that doesn't always work?

 

 

 

 

Or: "man is imperfect, therefor he must be destroyed".

 

 

Yes, I am being facetious (as well you are too).

 

So...now what? People in autos kill other people, so elimanate autos?

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by 17 Tubes Did I say it existed? You are choosing an argument you can win.

 

 

No man. The argument was yours not mine. Please re-read your original post I quoted and realize what you are implying :

 

 

Originally posted by 17 Tubes People on the anti-death penalty are asking "pro" DP to remain objective... And So should it aplly to ALL sides. Someone made the remark that the DP is more expensive than life. You say "Just one innocent's death makes it unjustifiable". These two points are not DIRECTLY related to the "justice" or "morality" of the death penalty. These two points are the result of an INEFFECTIVE system. 25 years to administer the punishment is FAR too long. So yes...it's nearly a life sentence already. If the State cannot prove "BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT" guilt, then no, he shouldn't be executed. To do otherwise is a FLAW IN THE SYSTEM. It does not negate or disprove the merits of the Death Penalty. IT proves are justice system is faulty.

 

 

Look at your argument. You aknowledge the justice system is faulty. But just before, you said "If the State cannot prove "BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT" guilt, then no, he shouldn't be executed. " The problem is that you cannot ensure the system won't ever be faulty because it would need to be perfect. It is impossible. Therefore, by your own logic death penalty is not suitable as a punishment in any justice system. See ?

 

 

Originally posted by 17 Tubes Since you are fond of cross-referencing ideology and logic: "Man is imperfect. Therefor he does not exist." See how that doesn't always work? Or: "man is imperfect, therefor he must be destroyed". Yes, I am being facetious (as well you are too). So...now what? People in autos kill other people, so elimanate autos?

 

 

No. You are not being facetious, you are just being wrong.

 

You say :

"Man is imperfect. Therefor he does not exist."

 

It should read "Man is imperfect. Therefore a perfect man does not exist."

 

Then you say :

"man is imperfect, therefor he must be destroyed".

 

Those 2 predicates are not logically related therefore this proposition is simply false.

 

Then you talk about road fatalities. But it is not logically related to death penalty and here is why : you'll aknowledge easily that it would be very hard to do without cars at all whereas it would be very easy to do without death penalty, since other western countries are doing just fine without it

 

So in summary, logic is a meaningful tool when discussing problems.

[Loghead]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous logic is a meaningful tool when discussing problems.

 

 

They haven't taught logic in American schools for at least thirty years.

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous No man. The argument was yours not mine. Please re-read your original post I quoted and realize what you are implying : Look at your argument. You aknowledge the justice system is faulty. But just before, you said "If the State cannot prove "BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT" guilt, then no, he shouldn't be executed. " The problem is that you cannot ensure the system won't ever be faulty because it would need to be perfect. It is impossible. Therefore, by your own logic death penalty is not suitable as a punishment in any justice system. See ? No. You are not being facetious, you are just being wrong. You say : "Man is imperfect. Therefor he does not exist." It should read "Man is imperfect. Therefore a perfect man does not exist." Then you say : "man is imperfect, therefor he must be destroyed". Those 2 predicates are not logically related therefore this proposition is simply false. Then you talk about road fatalities. But it is not logically related to death penalty and here is why : you'll aknowledge easily that it would be very hard to do without cars at all whereas it would be very easy to do without death penalty, since other western countries are doing just fine without it So in summary, logic is a meaningful tool when discussing problems.

 

 

Okay, Jack. I grant you EVERYTHING you say.

 

It's just my opinion.

 

When are we ditching:

 

Automobiles

Airplanes

 

 

And anything else that kills innocent people?

 

 

Oh yeah! That's right! I guess we have to ditch PEOPLE that kill innocents as well! After all, if we follow your LOGIC...we can't have anything on the planet that kills innocent people.

 

 

Talk about flawed logic!

 

(For the sake of argument Jack. I am no Logics expert).

[Bradman006]

Arnie terminated his ass.