Practical Genocide

[Ataraxia]

>_________>

You could say that just about any behavior is in our genes.

 

[Biomega]

>_________>

You could say that just about any behavior is in our genes.

There are certain behaviour which has manifested recently, and has nothing to do with genes. We, as humans also exhibit contrasting characteristics -- we feel pity towards other humans as well, especially the hopeless(a man in captive about to get killed). It's a part of our survival.



And I will agree with Lily, killing anyone en masse for whatever the reasons is just inhumane. But that's us, after all.

 

[Ataraxia]

While new behavior may have manifested it would have had to have been from or influenced by previous behavior, no?



I don't like the word inhumane, war is inhumane but it doesn't stop us from going around killing each other.



Why am I bothering doing this?

You guys have a much larger pool of info to pull from to debate with than I do.

 

[Lily]

[quote name='Ataraxia']While new behavior may have manifested it would have had to have been from or influenced by previous behavior, no?



I don't like the word inhumane, war is inhumane but it doesn't stop us from going around killing each other.



Why am I bothering doing this?

You guys have a much larger pool of info to pull from to debate with than I do.[/QUOTE]



Yeah they are inhumane... some may say it´s necessary and try to justify it with that but... any kind of act of murder is inhumane in my eyes.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

"You just got Zero Phoenixed!"

[quote name='Lily']I dont think any kind of mass-murder can be defined as 'humane', even if they are criminals (this is where the hypercorrect me comes in and Im sorry I used this term. I dont think its used in English the same way as it is in Dutch... It's like that example I gave. Im against a death penalty's even if they are horrible people....most times).[/QUOTE]



Think of them as cattle then.







[quote name='Lily']And it´s not like I believe these people deserve a second chance or they may have good in them. It´s the fact that the minute we decide who gets to live and who gets the die... it gets tricky. How do we know this will only stay with criminals?[/QUOTE]



The Justice System has been in place for more than a century. It's not always correct but it hits the target more times than it misses. It's not a perfect world so we deal with what we've got. A system that is flawed but gets the job done.







[quote name='Lily']And to what degree do these crimes have to be for the criminal to be ´elegible´ for the genocide. Killing another human? Raping? Stealing? Extorsion?[/QUOTE]



Murder and rape will be punishable by death. Stealing and extorsion we flip a coin (sarcasm). Or we could send those offenders to camps. Like I said, depends on which is more practical and humane. In the case of thieves it would probably be both practical and humane to stick them in a work camp. Killing the murderers/rapists would be the more humane/practical thing to do in those cases.





[quote name='Lily']There is no black and white only shades of gray. Once you started mass-murdering the criminals, why dont you murder the corrupt too and this may lead to a domino effect. I may be measuring with two different standards but this is how I see it. The moment humans are given the power over someone´s life, we kind of turn into monsters (the Stanford prison experiment).[/QUOTE]





I hope you don't think I'm insulting you but everything you just said (everything) is incorrect. There is no grey. Only black and white exist in this world. I mean why do you think we even have a justice system? :shrug: If the world was grey as you claim it is, then there would be no criminal acts because there would be no right or wrong. We would not have any means to judge criminals or hold them accountable for their crimes because in your worldview there is no right and wrong. Everything is grey. If everyone thought the way you did there would be no law, no order, and people could do whatever they want. Justice, as a system, is the understanding that the world is black and white. How else do you think we adjudge the the difference between citizens and the criminals that prey on them?



Let me ask you a question. Do you really believe what you posted? Do you truly believe that, "The moment humans are given the power over someone´s life, we kind of turn into monsters." And if you do believe that, are you ready to defend that argument?



In case you haven't noticed the 10,000 or so years of human "civilization" people have always had control over the lives of others. Kings, police, politicians, tribal leaders, whatever. Ever since recorded history there have always been laws, and there have always been judges in one form or another who decide the fate of those who break the law. Your argument is not based in reality Lily. You claim that if human beings claim power over someone else's life then we turn into monsters. Then I suppose we've been monsters since the beginning because that's how law and order are kept. Men will always do evil unless there are laws in place to curb that that intent. The more, impure men, will still act with evil intentions and they must be punished to prevent others from doing the same but also because of the penalty of their actions. Whenever a police officer puts on his uniform he is holding power over someone's life. When a judge puts on their robe they are doing the same. When a general begins military operations he is doing the same. I respect your arguments my dear but quite frankly they don't hold up against my scrutiny.







[quote name='Lily']The part about the parents, husbands and wives and childeren may be irrelevant to you, it should still be taken into consideration.[/QUOTE]



I took them into consideration and judged them to be irrelevant. Yet I still made provisions for their well-being. What more do you want? :shrug:







[quote name='Lily']Their lifes will be affected too. Don´t get me wrong.... most of them will probably be better off. I was getting too emotional, I suppose.[/QUOTE]



Noted.







[quote name='Lily']So in the end you say, why take the chance? ....[/QUOTE]



Because we can't keep going along our current course.

 

[Biomega]

[quote name='Ataraxia']While new behavior may have manifested it would have had to have been from or influenced by previous behavior, no?[/QUOTE]Sometimes, yes.

[quote name='Ataraxia']I don't like the word inhumane, war is inhumane but it doesn't stop us from going around killing each other.[/QUOTE]True, it's hard to be humane for a moment. Once the cease-fire ends, it's all of us killing each other once again.

[quote name='Ataraxia']Why am I bothering doing this?

You guys have a much larger pool of info to pull from to debate with than I do.[/QUOTE]

Awe, come on, man. It is a healthy practice if you do it once in a while. You don't have to treat this as an irl heated forum debate, but as a discussion. You will learn new stuff from other people; you will learn from their mistakes, too. Think of it as trading post of infos.

 

[-lexus-]

Then you should have said that to start with. That's your problem [lexus], you're so eager to try and prove something that you go completely off topic with these rants that only show you're overcompensating for something. I asked you for your very real opinion on the matter and you opened up the discussion with a bunch of insults, grouped together with an argument that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the actual topic. If you said THIS (above) to begin with then there wouldn't be beef between us. If you want to dis me then visit my page or PM me. Otherwise stay on the damn topic. Something that only took you three days to do.

Actually, the other point was that you are not in the position to judge. But okay, you didnt get it, fine. Its a discussion killer anyways. And I dont know what you perceived as an insult, but non of it was meant as one. Im sorry if it did.

Let me help you out. If you said just because something is practical, that doesn't mean it's humane. Then you'd have an argument. But if something is both practical and humane it is completely morally and logically correct. Your claims to the opposite are incorrect my friend. Do you see how this works? When you're not throwing blows THIS becomes a debate.

How is it humane? Because you dont lock someone up? Maybe your view is humane, but you should really ask the people in the jails how they feel about. I bet most of them prefer to live in a prison over a quick death. So, is it humane? You say yes, but youre not on death row or in a prison. So you say yes from a position where you cant say yes. People in the prison say no, and they are in the best position to judge. So, its not humane, merely practical.

Your Nazi-Holocaust angle is tired and flawed. Why? Let me give you a history lesson. The Nazi's aim to exterminate the Jews was driven by racism, not humane practicality. The Nazi's wanted to exterminate the Jews based on racial prejudice. I am hypothetically arguing the need to exterminate criminals based on their crimes. Capital punishment my friend. What you're talking about and what I'm talking about are two completely different things. Not only that but again, exterminating an entire race of people just because of bigotry is neither practical nor humane. So even on the basis of logic your argument has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Let me take a different approach.

The fact that they put Jews in a group of undesirables was indeed based on racism. But that was not the point of the argument. The point was that the way the Nazis killed the Jews was that in a way of Utilitarianism taken to a new extreme. Imagine just for a second that Jews were all scum (they are not, but for the sake of the argument just imagine it for a second), this is what the Nazis believed. They believed that Jews were equal to pedophiles and rapists. Thus, they sought to the eliminate the Jewish problem. At first by bullying them out of Germany. Then when it no longer became an option to bully them away, they went a step further and set up something what you are suggesting. Because setting Jews in trains and deport them to death camps was considered to be the most practical, cost effective and humane.



The only difference between what you are suggesting and what the Nazis are suggesting, is the motive. For Nazis it was racism, for you its to get rid of real criminals. However, my point is, whether you fill Auschwitz up with actual criminals or Jews, in either case its a crime against humanity. Never again another Auschwitz, regardless of who they gas.

A.) A serial killer has murdered 19 people. - The killer is sentenced to death. - In killing him others won't be harmed by THAT particular offender.



B.) A Jew is going to the temple. - A Nazi kills him because he doesn't like Jews. - N/A



There are no gains to civilization is killing a Jew or anyone based on racial prejudices. However there is a humane practicality in killing a serial killer to prevent them from murdering more people in the future. Do you finally see how this works?

I fully see what you mean, as I used to believe the same thing. But like I said, Auschwitz is a crime against humanity, regardless of who they gas.

Wow, that's sort of the whole point. :shrug:



My aim is to acquire data, information on what other people think of the topic. Look [lexus] not everyone is going to think the way you think. Some people are going to say somethings that you find abrasive. Some people are going to make claims that are outright shocking but that's what you get in a forum. If you can't handle that then you shouldn't be here. You feel me? I understand that Voltron's post was, well, objectionable which is why I questioned him on it. Of course Voltron hasn't responded yet and unless he does it doesn't really get us anywhere to talk about an argument that he isn't defending. I am aware that people are going to post things that I disagree with but unlike you I can tolerate that. THAT'S what I want. THAT'S how forums operate. Now sit down for a minute and actually listen to someone other than yourself.



Now before you attack me for disagreeing with you, bear in mind that I'm actually on the same page as you in regards to being against killing people who are terminally ill. Do you get that? I agree with you. But because I'm objective (and I'm prone to playing Devil's Advocate) I can understand Voltron's argument, even if I DON'T agree with it. People who are terminally ill are people who simply won't get better. They're months, weeks, sometimes even days from dying. That's why they're called terminally ill. They won't get better and there is a very short window until they die. You with me still? From Voltron's pov, there is no point in wasting resources (money, medicine, food, water, electricity, and so forth) on a group of people who are going to be dead soon anyway. It would be practical to euthanize all of them. This is undebateable. Voltron has both of us by the throat. However, we can debate whether or not his idea is humane. I'm a religious man and I do believe in miracles. None of us can see what's on God's timetable but if someone is like a week away from a miraculous recovery and we pulled the plug then shit we have a problem. Not only that but if I were terminally ill I'd want to live hoping for a miracle rather than die because the doctor said look man you're eating up our electricity. Is Voltron's solution practical? Hell yeah. Is it humane? That's debateable.

My argument was actually a slippery slope argument, and Voltron was kind enough to provide me with support of that. Slippery slopes arguments are weak when it remains to be seen whether people will actually support worse and worse things. Voltron did support something worse, thereby providing evidence of the actual existence of a slippery slope. Now we are on the second page, and people are already suggesting we kill people because in the future they might commit a terrible crime. See? Its getting worse, people are getting easier with the sort of people they dont mind getting killed. More proof for the slippery slope towards another Auschwitz.

I'll make this short and sweet. One, your first point is actually something that can be argued so feel free. Now you're getting the hang of it. Two, your second point holds no merit. A real Christian isn't homophobic nor would a real Christian say let's kill gays because they're indecent. Three, I'm pretty sure Republicans kill Liberals, Democrats, and other Republicans all the time. It's politics baby. Four, the last part of your argument jumps the shark. In lamens terms you've nothing to substantiate that claim and you're speculating. Now we have a debate.

Its irrelevant whether you think the Christian is a real Christian or not. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christian by name but would wipe their ass with half of the commandments in the good book. The point was that they are homophobic.



And last, we already saw that someone suggested terminally sick people, and others have by now suggested also criminals who havent done anything yet. So there is something to substantiate my claim.

Don't care. Their parents are not involved in this. The criminals themselves are. If their parents were ill or invalid then they will be placed in a nursing home.





Don't care. Their husbands/wives are not involved in this. The criminals themselves are. If their husbands/wives were ill or invalid then they'll be placed in assisted living.





Their kids are not involved in this. The criminals themselves are. The kids will be placed with relatives or foster care. Probably safer for them.

This is why I wrote my first post. These people have families, so they are not, in your words 'vermin', but living human beings with people that care about them. Then society or the government comes along and says 'because of what you are or what you have done, we no longer think that you have the right to exist anymore. Youre vermin and vermin must be exterminated.' Its dehumanizing humans, and no matter what these people have done, we must not start dehumanizing people, as that is the first step on the road to another Auschwitz. And this is why I said that people that do dehumanize people are no better then those murderers or whatever that they want dead. I assume thats what you got offended over, and it wasnt meant as an offense, its just how I feel about the issue. Dehumanizing other human beings is not okay in my eyes and I will tell everyone that does how I feel about it.

That's what I was trying to explain to [lexus]. He argued that my argument endorsing the killing of criminals is the same as Nazi's killing Jews. Those two aren't even slightly related.

Its partly the same. The method of killing and the argument behind the killing is the same. You dehumanize a group of people (you even described it as a culture) and you kill them because it is the most practical. The difference is that you have a slightly better argumentation behind killing these people. Your argument is not based on some insane racist ideology but because some people are criminals.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

You're done.

You still don't get it. I'll just ignore your Nazi connections because you still don't understand that your examples have nothing to do with the topic at hand so I'll switch gears.

How is it humane? Because you dont lock someone up? Maybe your view is humane, but you should really ask the people in the jails how they feel about. I bet most of them prefer to live in a prison over a quick death. So, is it humane? You say yes, but youre not on death row or in a prison. So you say yes from a position where you cant say yes. People in the prison say no, and they are in the best position to judge. So, its not humane, merely practical.

Depends on what prison. I'm not sure where you're from but depending on the prison some criminals would rather die than be locked up. Compare, for example, a Russian prison versus an American one. There are some criminals would rather take the death penalty than LIFE in prison so obviously, keeping them locked up is more inhumane than killing them but I suppose it depends on what type of prison they're in.

Its irrelevant whether you think the Christian is a real Christian or not. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christian by name but would wipe their ass with half of the commandments in the good book. The point was that they are homophobic.

Not everyone who says they are Christian, actually are Christians. Jesus himself said there were (and would be) many who claim to come in the name of the Father but He would deny them. No true Christian is a bigot, a homophobe, or what have you and you cannot, with any real sense equate the wolves to the sheep they are passing themselves off to be. You advised me to try and listen and see other people's arguments. You would do well to follow your own advice before daring to suggest anything to me. Just because a person says they are a Christian, that does not mean they actually are one. Get it? And personally, I don't know any Christians who are homophobic so obviously someone has you fooled.

And last, we already saw that someone suggested terminally sick people, and others have by now suggested also criminals who havent done anything yet. So there is something to substantiate my claim.

Good. Such is the ebb and flow of debates. See how this works when you're not at my throat.

This is why I wrote my first post. These people have families, so they are not, in your words 'vermin', but living human beings with people that care about them.

My apologies. You and Lily-chan seem to think I care. I'll tell you the same thing I told her. I took them into consideration, and judged them to be irrelevant. Yet I still made provisions for them. What else do you want? Your argument is, well, ridiculous. I mean are you really expecting me to give a criminal a lighter sentence just because they have a family? You can't be serious. So if a guy kills 11 women, we're supposed to show mercy because his mom is in a home? If some dude rapes little kids but he has a sick daughter of his own he shouldn't go to jail? You've got to be joking. Btw [lexus], if their loved ones meant anything the criminals would have thought about them instead of committing the act that got them into trouble in the first place. Just so you know.

Then society or the government comes along and says 'because of what you are or what you have done, we no longer think that you have the right to exist anymore. Youre vermin and vermin must be exterminated.' Its dehumanizing humans, and no matter what these people have done, we must not start dehumanizing people, as that is the first step on the road to another Auschwitz. And this is why I said that people that do dehumanize people are no better then those murderers or whatever that they want dead. I assume thats what you got offended over, and it wasnt meant as an offense, its just how I feel about the issue. Dehumanizing other human beings is not okay in my eyes and I will tell everyone that does how I feel about it.

Your words mean nothing to me. You just said a thread ago that you respect Hitler. You admired, you esteemed what he's done but when you equate my actions to his suddenly they become immoral. I'm not even going to pretend to take you seriously anymore.

The difference is that you have a slightly better argumentation behind killing these people. Your argument is not based on some insane racist ideology but because some people are criminals.

Only took you three days but you're starting to get it.



NEXT.

 

[-lexus-]

Depends on what prison. I'm not sure where you're from but depending on the prison some criminals would rather die than be locked up. Compare, for example, a Russian prison versus an American one. There are some criminals would rather take the death penalty than LIFE in prison so obviously, keeping them locked up is more inhumane than killing them but I suppose it depends on what type of prison they're in.

Keyword: some. Indeed, some, not all, but some. A minority. Youd kill them all because of what a minority wants. And yeah, a Russian prison is undoubtedly worse then an American one, yet still not everyone or even a vast majority in those prisons commits suicide. So, apparently, they think that living is preferable over death, no matter how miserable life might be.

Not everyone who says they are Christian, actually are Christians. Jesus himself said there were (and would be) many who claim to come in the name of the Father but He would deny them. No true Christian is a bigot, a homophobe, or what have you and you cannot, with any real sense equate the wolves to the sheep they are passing themselves off to be. You advised me to try and listen and see other people's arguments. You would do well to follow your own advice before daring to suggest anything to me. Just because a person says they are a Christian, that does not mean they actually are one. Get it? And personally, I don't know any Christians who are homophobic so obviously someone has you fooled.

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Each and every single one there considers himself to be a good Christian. I agree with you, they are not good Christians or even Christians at all. Still, they use that name. But fine, whatever. Then cross out Christian and just read 'homophobic person'.

My apologies. You and Lily-chan seem to think I care. I'll tell you the same thing I told her. I took them into consideration, and judged them to be irrelevant. Yet I still made provisions for them. What else do you want? Your argument is, well, ridiculous. I mean are you really expecting me to give a criminal a lighter sentence just because they have a family? You can't be serious. So if a guy kills 11 women, we're supposed to show mercy because his mom is in a home? If some dude rapes little kids but he has a sick daughter of his own he shouldn't go to jail? You've got to be joking. Btw [lexus], if their loved ones meant anything the criminals would have thought about them instead of committing the act that got them into trouble in the first place. Just so you know.

No, we should still lock someone up, we just should not kill them. And you are rather...easy when it comes to passing down judgement on people you dont know. Like you said, there is no grey, only black and white. That is not true. There is grey. Why do you think not every murderer gets the death penalty. Why some go free after 10 years and others spend a 100 years in prison. Because of the different background. Because of a dozen of other factors that might have driven to commit the crime. And you will just wipe that all aside and say guilty is guilty, now die.



And again, my argument is that you dehumanize these people. You dont see them as fathers and mothers or sons or daughters, but as vermin and vermin has no family we should really care about. Their families are irrelevant according to you, just as family was irrelevant to the SS when they killed people. You are already creating a coping mechanism for the moment these people would get killed. No offense, but I find that rather worrisome.

Your words mean nothing to me. You just said a thread ago that you respect Hitler. You admired, you esteemed what he's done but when you equate my actions to his suddenly they become immoral. I'm not even going to pretend to take you seriously anymore.

You just dont want to understand me now do you? I said a dozen of times that I do not and did not ever agree with what Hitler and his Nazis did. Perhaps you should actually take that stuff in account as well, instead of just ignoring it. You know, its relevant. Oh well, I guess that there is no room for subtlety with someone who only sees black and white.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

On your knees.

Keyword: some. Indeed, some, not all, but some. A minority. Youd kill them all because of what a minority wants. And yeah, a Russian prison is undoubtedly worse then an American one, yet still not everyone or even a vast majority in those prisons commits suicide. So, apparently, they think that living is preferable over death, no matter how miserable life might be.

Noted.

No, we should still lock someone up, we just should not kill them.

So you're against capital punishment. That's cool.

And you are rather...easy when it comes to passing down judgement on people you dont know.

And should I be bothered by that? Just because it's something you take issue with, that does not mean that I need to concern myself.

Like you said, there is no grey, only black and white. That is not true. There is grey. Why do you think not every murderer gets the death penalty. Why some go free after 10 years and others spend a 100 years in prison. Because of the different background. Because of a dozen of other factors that might have driven to commit the crime. And you will just wipe that all aside and say guilty is guilty, now die.

Uhhhhhhhh, but they still go to trial. Annnnnndddddd, they are found guilty. :shrug: Do you not realize how ridiculous your arguments are? If you're not going to take this seriously I won't either. You're basically arguing that well, if they weren't sentenced to death then there is no right or wrong. No my apprentice, the fact that they even went to trial and were sentenced (life, a couple years, a couple months, death, who cares) indicates the moral black and white of every situation. In this case the nature of the crime they stand on trial for.

And again, my argument is that you dehumanize these people. You dont see them as fathers and mothers or sons or daughters, but as vermin and vermin has no family we should really care about.

Again my young apprentice, what does that have to do with their crimes? Listen, and listen carefully. If a pedophiles rapes a bunch of kids and he just happens to have a daughter, what the hell does she have to do with his crime or prison sentence?

You just dont want to understand me now do you? I said a dozen of times that I do not and did not ever agree with what Hitler and his Nazis did. Perhaps you should actually take that stuff in account as well, instead of just ignoring it.

No I got it. I'm dealing with a person who doesn't even know how to use a dictionary. We good.

You know, its relevant. Oh well, I guess that there is no room for subtlety with someone who only sees black and white.

Now you're getting it.