ZERO PHOENIX said:
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.
ZERO PHOENIX said:
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.
ZERO PHOENIX said:
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.