Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2010 16:24:11 GMT -6
It has always been an anti's argument that capital punishment devalues human life. However, some pros have tried to steal this argument. Claiming that to do less than the death penalty would devalue the life of the victim. Here's my response.
We don't measure the value of the life of the victim based upon whether the murderer should die or not. That is completely unwarrented. As an anti, I value human life infinitely. This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. So what the death penalty does is lesson the value of human life. With capital punishment, life does not have infinite value. This is extends to the victim as well. It's saying that the victim too had the same limitation. To spare the life of the murderer would show that the crime was so heinous that even for the murderer himself we are willing to allow him to live. It also values the life of both murderer and victim as being infinite. Whereas capital punishment would lesson the value of both murderer and victim as less than infinite.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 12, 2010 16:55:13 GMT -6
It has always been an anti's argument that capital punishment devalues human life. However, some pros have tried to steal this argument. Claiming that to do less than the death penalty would devalue the life of the victim. We devalue the lives of all victims to the extent we punish some murderers more harshly than others. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're misguided. It's retribution that's needed after someone is murdered, not benevolence.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 12, 2010 18:11:07 GMT -6
This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. this is contradictory and actually invalidates your whole argument. you're placing more value on your life than his.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2010 18:56:02 GMT -6
This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. this is contradictory and actually invalidates your whole argument. you're placing more value on your life than his. I don't believe it invalidates my argument. If someone broke into my house and attacks me, I will shoot him, but only to put a stop to a violent situation as soon as possible. If he's on the ground and I kick his gun away my next step would be to call 911 and if he's still alive I will administer first aid. If you have a situation where whether you act or not the end result could be tragic, then it is an unfortunate situation. I don't value my life more than his since they are both infinite, the reason why I must shoot him is to put a stop to a violent situation.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 12, 2010 19:51:51 GMT -6
this is contradictory and actually invalidates your whole argument. you're placing more value on your life than his. I don't value my life more than his since they are both infinite, not if you're willing to take one to save one. at least your actions are correct if not your theory/beliefs. your life is worth more than his and should be, mine is too.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 12, 2010 22:39:10 GMT -6
I don't believe it invalidates my argument. That is because you don't understand the meaning of words and you are illogical. You used the word "infinately". No circumstance can overcome that.
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 12, 2010 22:49:05 GMT -6
CROSS POSTED FROM ANOTHER THREAD We are merely advocating expediting their in person, up close and personal, meeting with their god. Seriously though, if you are willing to take someone's life to protect your own I have a question for you. Wouldn't the difference between you and the State really come down to a function of time. You defend yourself, the state defends us all by taking a life. You make your decision in a few tenths of a second while the state gets to mull the problem over. Are you saying that if you had time to think about it, you wouldn't point your weapon center mass and shoot to wound? You have already thought this out if you are saying "except in self defense".
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 13, 2010 9:01:03 GMT -6
Well let me say I do not really "Value" human life. Everyone dies and will come to their own end. Some of us choose not to be criminals and not to murder other people, some of us have chosen a life of service and care, some of private industry, some just to be bums but not criminal and some have chosen to be criminals and of those some have chosen to be murderers; note it in every case the term is chosen. For each there is a reward at the end or during their life, for some of us it is the feeling of helping others, some it is making money, some the feeling of freedom, others it is a jail cell and for the last is or ought to be a jail cell until the state puts them down. In the end we all die and the difference is how we live. No life is more valuable than another and in the end no amount of money or care can save a person. So there is no real value in a human life only in the way we live and criminals and murderers have chosen not to invest in that part of life.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Mar 13, 2010 9:51:52 GMT -6
In the end we all die and the difference is how we live. No life is more valuable than another and in the end no amount of money or care can save a person. So there is no real value in a human life only in the way we live and criminals and murderers have chosen not to invest in that part of life. Although I oppose the death penalty, I agree with you David. I always think it's tragic that a person chooses to waste their live and wreak havoc in so many others by committing the act of murder. Good post
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 13, 2010 10:17:48 GMT -6
It has always been an anti's argument that capital punishment devalues human life. However, some pros have tried to steal this argument. Claiming that to do less than the death penalty would devalue the life of the victim. Here's my response. We don't measure the value of the life of the victim based upon whether the murderer should die or not. That is completely unwarrented. As an anti, I value human life infinitely. This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. So what the death penalty does is lesson the value of human life. With capital punishment, life does not have infinite value. This is extends to the victim as well. It's saying that the victim too had the same limitation. To spare the life of the murderer would show that the crime was so heinous that even for the murderer himself we are willing to allow him to live. It also values the life of both murderer and victim as being infinite. Whereas capital punishment would lesson the value of both murderer and victim as less than infinite. I know folks get angry when I mix the two topics abortion and the DP. Yet both are about control over life and death and our values of human life as a whole, I cannot understand how the two can be seperated. If a person murders and rapes a child of this land, or kills a women as Sharon Tate for example well into her pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment to give the DP to the murderer? Yet many antis I listen to,on the abortion issue are for it. Very odd messages. For me abortion is a topic, where one on this earth has to remain with options for situations, same wholes true with the DP.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Mar 13, 2010 10:50:37 GMT -6
I know folks get angry when I mix the two topics abortion and the DP. Yet both are about control over life and death and our values of human life as a whole, I cannot understand how the two can be seperated. If a person murders and rapes a child of this land, or kills a women as Sharon Tate for example well into her pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment to give the DP to the murderer? Yet many antis I listen to,on the abortion issue are for it. Very odd messages. For me abortion is a topic, where one on this earth has to remain with options for situations, same wholes true with the DP. I respect your stance towards abortion but being "pro-choice" (I don't like that term; it sounds like the choice between two different sorts of ice cream) and being anti don't exclude each other. The woman would have to endure 9 months of pregnancy which come with restricition what she can do and also symptoms we usually attribute to diseases (nausea, pain etc.). The question is whether we believe we can force a woman to endure that even against her will. The second question would be whether we call a fetus a human being and thus the mentioned restrictions and symptoms have to be endured to save a life. It's way more complex than the DP because there are no real alternatives if a woman demands abortion and you have to balance the right to life of the fetus (if it already has that right which can be doubted) with the right of the woman to determine what shall happen to her body and what not. Then you could also argue with a responsibility of the woman for being so stupid not to have used contraception, in contrast to not being responsible for the pregnancy at all (cases of rape, for example). It's not that easy, except for those who base their decision on faith. The latter cannot be the moral ground for a universal and secular law though.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 13, 2010 11:50:14 GMT -6
I know folks get angry when I mix the two topics abortion and the DP. Yet both are about control over life and death and our values of human life as a whole, I cannot understand how the two can be seperated. If a person murders and rapes a child of this land, or kills a women as Sharon Tate for example well into her pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment to give the DP to the murderer? Yet many antis I listen to,on the abortion issue are for it. Very odd messages. For me abortion is a topic, where one on this earth has to remain with options for situations, same wholes true with the DP. I respect your stance towards abortion but being "pro-choice" (I don't like that term; it sounds like the choice between two different sorts of ice cream) and being anti don't exclude each other. The woman would have to endure 9 months of pregnancy which come with restricition what she can do and also symptoms we usually attribute to diseases (nausea, pain etc.). The question is whether we believe we can force a woman to endure that even against her will. The second question would be whether we call a fetus a human being and thus the mentioned restrictions and symptoms have to be endured to save a life. It's way more complex than the DP because there are no real alternatives if a woman demands abortion and you have to balance the right to life of the fetus (if it already has that right which can be doubted) with the right of the woman to determine what shall happen to her body and what not. Then you could also argue with a responsibility of the woman for being so stupid not to have used contraception, in contrast to not being responsible for the pregnancy at all (cases of rape, for example). It's not that easy, except for those who base their decision on faith. The latter cannot be the moral ground for a universal and secular law though. What I am trying to say, is both sides abortion and DP which not coming from my faith, needs options available for the value of human life as a whole. I resent when one opposes the DP for better options,in a sense it is twisted. We need to be more civilized they are saying. If they feel the same toward abortion, ( better options) over abortions, if they feel the same toward war, self defense ok I'll buy it. I have a problem with the defense of not using or needing a DP for the evil. Ok for the others circumstance though. I wish life was so easy and black and white, it is not. abortion needs to be legal and an option, as well as the DP for circumstances to the value of those on this earth. Hard choices not pretty but needed. Life does have a value to me, not monetary, or property etc no amount of money or other can replace any individual. Yes, we are all going to die, by natural, accidental, suicide, or murdered. Life is precious, and sometimes we have to prevent or end one ourselves. For the mother or for society as a whole.
|
|
redd
Regular
Redd, Lonny's Big Sister
Posts: 378
|
Post by redd on Mar 13, 2010 14:02:14 GMT -6
It has always been an anti's argument that capital punishment devalues human life. However, some pros have tried to steal this argument. Claiming that to do less than the death penalty would devalue the life of the victim. Here's my response. We don't measure the value of the life of the victim based upon whether the murderer should die or not. That is completely unwarrented. As an anti, I value human life infinitely. This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. So what the death penalty does is lesson the value of human life. With capital punishment, life does not have infinite value. This is extends to the victim as well. It's saying that the victim too had the same limitation. To spare the life of the murderer would show that the crime was so heinous that even for the murderer himself we are willing to allow him to live. It also values the life of both murderer and victim as being infinite. Whereas capital punishment would lesson the value of both murderer and victim as less than infinite. BULLSH*T To spare the life of the murderer would be saying that the victims life has no value, who by the way was just going about his/her life, not bothering anyone. The killer was out to commit a crime and didn't care about anything except "getting away".
|
|
|
Post by ichy on Mar 13, 2010 14:23:56 GMT -6
My sig should tell you how I feel about the death penalty and the value of human life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2010 17:01:33 GMT -6
It has always been an anti's argument that capital punishment devalues human life. However, some pros have tried to steal this argument. Claiming that to do less than the death penalty would devalue the life of the victim. Here's my response. We don't measure the value of the life of the victim based upon whether the murderer should die or not. That is completely unwarrented. As an anti, I value human life infinitely. This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. So what the death penalty does is lesson the value of human life. With capital punishment, life does not have infinite value. This is extends to the victim as well. It's saying that the victim too had the same limitation. To spare the life of the murderer would show that the crime was so heinous that even for the murderer himself we are willing to allow him to live. It also values the life of both murderer and victim as being infinite. Whereas capital punishment would lesson the value of both murderer and victim as less than infinite. I know folks get angry when I mix the two topics abortion and the DP. Yet both are about control over life and death and our values of human life as a whole, I cannot understand how the two can be seperated. If a person murders and rapes a child of this land, or kills a women as Sharon Tate for example well into her pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment to give the DP to the murderer? Yet many antis I listen to,on the abortion issue are for it. Very odd messages. For me abortion is a topic, where one on this earth has to remain with options for situations, same wholes true with the DP. I am a hundred percent AGAINST abortion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2010 17:05:46 GMT -6
It has always been an anti's argument that capital punishment devalues human life. However, some pros have tried to steal this argument. Claiming that to do less than the death penalty would devalue the life of the victim. Here's my response. We don't measure the value of the life of the victim based upon whether the murderer should die or not. That is completely unwarrented. As an anti, I value human life infinitely. This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. So what the death penalty does is lesson the value of human life. With capital punishment, life does not have infinite value. This is extends to the victim as well. It's saying that the victim too had the same limitation. To spare the life of the murderer would show that the crime was so heinous that even for the murderer himself we are willing to allow him to live. It also values the life of both murderer and victim as being infinite. Whereas capital punishment would lesson the value of both murderer and victim as less than infinite. To spare the life of the murderer would be saying that the victims life has no value, who by the way was just going about his/her life, not bothering anyone. The killer was out to commit a crime and didn't care about anything except "getting away". Killing the murderer would be saying that the victims life was less than infinite. They are subject to the same limitation. Sparing the life of the murderer is saying that both their lives are infinite. That under no circumstances they should die. There's just simply no way around it. Again this is an antis argument. Pros need to find another argument. They can't have this one.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 13, 2010 17:09:56 GMT -6
To spare the life of the murderer would be saying that the victims life has no value, who by the way was just going about his/her life, not bothering anyone. The killer was out to commit a crime and didn't care about anything except "getting away". Killing the murderer would be saying that the victims life was less than infinite. They are subject to the same limitation. Sparing the life of the murderer is saying that both their lives are infinite. That under no circumstances they should die. There's just simply no way around it. you seemed to dance around it just fine when you said you would kill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2010 17:19:05 GMT -6
Killing the murderer would be saying that the victims life was less than infinite. They are subject to the same limitation. Sparing the life of the murderer is saying that both their lives are infinite. That under no circumstances they should die. There's just simply no way around it. you seemed to dance around it just fine when you said you would kill I'm willing to put a stop to a violent situation. It is tragic that in self defense it may result in the death of my attacker. If I don't, then it may not end with me.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 13, 2010 17:35:59 GMT -6
you seemed to dance around it just fine when you said you would kill I'm willing to put a stop to a violent situation. It is tragic that in self defense it may result in the death of my attacker. If I don't, then it may not end with me. I fully understand self defense and support your decision to use it 1000%. I do not understand how you try to take us to task for putting a "value" on life when you do exactly that yourself.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 13, 2010 17:50:29 GMT -6
To spare the life of the murderer would be saying that the victims life has no value, who by the way was just going about his/her life, not bothering anyone. The killer was out to commit a crime and didn't care about anything except "getting away". Killing the murderer would be saying that the victims life was less than infinite. They are subject to the same limitation. Sparing the life of the murderer is saying that both their lives are infinite. That under no circumstances they should die. There's just simply no way around it. Again this is an antis argument. Pros need to find another argument. They can't have this one. No life is infinite we all die. Murderers should die because they deserve to, they made that choice when they murdered.. To me sparing the life of a murderer would be placing a higher value on his life than that of the victim. (Note that would be if I placed any value on life.) By what right do you think you can say who can and can not use an argument?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 13, 2010 18:00:08 GMT -6
I know folks get angry when I mix the two topics abortion and the DP. Yet both are about control over life and death and our values of human life as a whole, I cannot understand how the two can be seperated. If a person murders and rapes a child of this land, or kills a women as Sharon Tate for example well into her pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment to give the DP to the murderer? Yet many antis I listen to,on the abortion issue are for it. Very odd messages. For me abortion is a topic, where one on this earth has to remain with options for situations, same wholes true with the DP. I am a hundred percent AGAINST abortion. Well if all anti DP believers will stick across the board with the anti of prevention (abortion) or executions or right to dignity to end a life, is wrong or even self defense, I will buy the stance but, it has to be across the board no exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2010 18:37:14 GMT -6
Killing the murderer would be saying that the victims life was less than infinite. They are subject to the same limitation. Sparing the life of the murderer is saying that both their lives are infinite. That under no circumstances they should die. There's just simply no way around it. Again this is an antis argument. Pros need to find another argument. They can't have this one. No life is infinite we all die. Murderers should die because they deserve to, they made that choice when they murdered.. To me sparing the life of a murderer would be placing a higher value on his life than that of the victim. (Note that would be if I placed any value on life.) By what right do you think you can say who can and can not use an argument? Life of course is not infinite. The value of it is. By sparing the murderer it is a statement to him that under no circumstances shouldve the victim been killed. I'm not taking away the right for pros to use the argument that sparing the life of a murderer devalues the victims life. I'm just saying it would be a futile attempt to prove that and should focus on other areas of the death penalty discussion. There may be other arguments that I would have more difficulty explaining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2010 18:40:00 GMT -6
I am a hundred percent AGAINST abortion. Well if all anti DP believers will stick across the board with the anti of prevention (abortion) or executions or right to dignity to end a life, is wrong or even self defense, I will buy the stance but, it has to be across the board no exceptions. I do have a problem with one arguing against capital punishment while supporting abortion. Hypocritical in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 13, 2010 20:10:15 GMT -6
Life of course is not infinite. The value of it is. By sparing the murderer it is a statement to him that under no circumstances shouldve the victim been killed. That may be the statement that you think that you are making. But the murderer typically receives that statement as, "Yes! I got away with it!" That has been proven by the many cases where murderers kill again (or attempt to kill again) after they escape execution for their first murder conviction.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 13, 2010 20:50:45 GMT -6
Life of course is not infinite. The value of it is. By sparing the murderer it is a statement to him that under no circumstances shouldve the victim been killed. That may be the statement that you think that you are making. But the murderer typically receives that statement as, "Yes! I got away with it!" That has been proven by the many cases where murderers kill again (or attempt to kill again) after they escape execution for their first murder conviction. Exactly, it is permission to their way of thinking we can get away with it, which is what is important part of the criminal thinking for observation of the murdering mind.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 14, 2010 20:40:36 GMT -6
No life is infinite we all die. Murderers should die because they deserve to, they made that choice when they murdered.. To me sparing the life of a murderer would be placing a higher value on his life than that of the victim. (Note that would be if I placed any value on life.) By what right do you think you can say who can and can not use an argument? Life of course is not infinite. The value of it is. By sparing the murderer it is a statement to him that under no circumstances shouldve the victim been killed. I'm not taking away the right for pros to use the argument that sparing the life of a murderer devalues the victims life. I'm just saying it would be a futile attempt to prove that and should focus on other areas of the death penalty discussion. There may be other arguments that I would have more difficulty explaining. The life of a murderer has no value he/she removed all value when they dicided to take anothers' life for no real reason. The victim on the other hand was an innocent and therefore had value. If we say that the murder is of equal value then we are surly devaluating the victim.
|
|
|
Post by supermax on Mar 15, 2010 7:22:11 GMT -6
Loveallpeople09,
I note you state you value human life infinitely, accordingly therefore you could under no circumstances condone the taking of a life. In those circumstances; I would be grateful if you would explain how any punishment whatsoever could be applied to any breach of law.
Surely, in your infinite value theory any imprisonment would be unacceptable due to its restriction on the quality and value of life of any individual ?
In these circumstances are you advocating that there is no applicable punishment which is appropriate for murderers ? In your opinion what would represent "justice" for the victims of murder and their survivors ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 20:40:56 GMT -6
It has always been an anti's argument that capital punishment devalues human life. However, some pros have tried to steal this argument. Claiming that to do less than the death penalty would devalue the life of the victim. Here's my response. We don't measure the value of the life of the victim based upon whether the murderer should die or not. That is completely unwarrented. As an anti, I value human life infinitely. This means that under no circumstances (other than in a self defense situation) should we take life. So what the death penalty does is lesson the value of human life. With capital punishment, life does not have infinite value. This is extends to the victim as well. It's saying that the victim too had the same limitation. To spare the life of the murderer would show that the crime was so heinous that even for the murderer himself we are willing to allow him to live. It also values the life of both murderer and victim as being infinite. Whereas capital punishment would lesson the value of both murderer and victim as less than infinite. BULLSH*T To spare the life of the murderer would be saying that the victims life has no value, who by the way was just going about his/her life, not bothering anyone. The killer was out to commit a crime and didn't care about anything except "getting away". Interesting argument, that by sparing the life of the murderer, which we do MOST of the time, we're saying that the victim's life had no value. So, then, it would seem that pros (who make up DP juries) and prosecutors, and judges, etc. don't place any value on MOST murder victims.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 20:54:46 GMT -6
BULLSH*T To spare the life of the murderer would be saying that the victims life has no value, who by the way was just going about his/her life, not bothering anyone. The killer was out to commit a crime and didn't care about anything except "getting away". Interesting argument, that by sparing the life of the murderer, which we do MOST of the time, we're saying that the victim's life had no value. So, then, it would seem that pros (who make up DP juries) and prosecutors, and judges, etc. don't place any value on MOST murder victims. Many pros would not leave any murder victims out if they were given the opportunity. The defense gets "strikes" when the jury is being selected too. This is unlike antis who would diss ALL murder victims if they had their way, no murderers would receive the most proportionate punishment that we can hand out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 21:03:44 GMT -6
Interesting argument, that by sparing the life of the murderer, which we do MOST of the time, we're saying that the victim's life had no value. So, then, it would seem that pros (who make up DP juries) and prosecutors, and judges, etc. don't place any value on MOST murder victims. Many pros would not leave any murder victims out if they were given the opportunity. Unlike antis who would diss ALL murder victims if they had their way, no murderers would receive the most proportionate punishment that we can hand out. Antis diss all murder victims. I assume that includes ALL antis.
|
|