Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 I think what people have a hard time with are views that have no basis on any rational judgment, but are the result of a "feeling" or some other motivation. There is a point at which the argument comes down to values, which is part rational and part emotional. You can't intellectualize the basic elements of your beliefs. If you want to call that emotional, then that's a definition but we all have values that have these elements, I think, so it doesn't make sense to discount one set over another. The common values that we share are already part of our laws - the ones that we differ on are the seeds of these debates. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 I see. You - yet again - resort to personal insults and accusations in response to my comments, but I'M the one who's "difficult to have conversations with."The fact that you so often resort to this type of insulting commentary tells me you don't like that I have made points counter to yours; points that you can't dismiss - so you resort to insults. You're insulted that I pointed out that you're conflating two different definitions of the word deter and that you commonly do this in other threads? Might I suggest you're being just a tad dramatic. Get over yourself. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) You're insulted that I pointed out that you're conflating two different definitions of the word deter and that you commonly do this in other threads? Might I suggest you're being just a tad dramatic. Get over yourself. Please tell me you're not that obtuse. You didn't "point out that I'm conflating two different definitions..." You said that "I'm difficult to have a discussion with ... and play silly word games." I don't believe that you are so stupid as to not see the difference between what you said and what you are now claiming to have said. And for the record, I'm not insulted in the least by your insults - but that doesn't change the fact that they are insults. Furthermore, they tell me exactly what I said they tell me - that you cannot deal well when people make points that oppose yours. Edited March 1, 2012 by American Woman Quote
cybercoma Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 Please tell me you're not that obtuse. You didn't "point out that I'm conflating two different definitions..." You said that "I'm difficult to have a discussion with ... and play silly word games." I don't believe that you are so stupid as to not see the difference between what you said and what you are now claiming to have said. And for the record, I'm not insulted in the least by your insults - but that doesn't change the fact that they are insults. Furthermore, they tell me exactly what I said they tell me - that you cannot deal well when people make points that oppose yours. Who's being insulting now? TIMES INFINITY! LOLz!!!1!one Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 While you're both doing a good job of dancing around *actual* insults, it's not really a forward-moving conversation is it ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 While you're both doing a good job of dancing around *actual* insults, it's not really a forward-moving conversation is it ? I thought it was when I pointed out that she's mixing up two different definitions of "deter". I was hoping we could move forward from there, although I can't say I'm surprised that we couldn't. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) While you're both doing a good job of dancing around *actual* insults, it's not really a forward-moving conversation is it ? Give me a break. There was nothing in my response that warranted the response I got - which was an insult - and as I said, it's not the first time, by any means. As far as I'm concerned, such a response does nothing towards "forward moving conversation," but yeah. Blame us both. He should say what he wants and I should ignore it - or I'm somehow to blame. :angry: Edited March 1, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 Give me a break. There was nothing in my response that warranted the response I got - which was an insult - and as I said, it's not the first time, by any means. As far as I'm concerned, such a response does nothing towards "forward moving conversation," but yeah. Blame us both. He should say what he wants and I should ignore it - or I'm somehow to blame. :angry: I blame no one, but I'm dying for this conversation to move forward in any way possible. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 WB, how is this not an emotional position? Definitely seems more like 'heart person' thinking than 'head person' thinking to me. I've never denied I have a heart, Star! I just think that it doesn't rule me. If I am going to be led by my heart, I try to make sure that it is in an honourable direction. To dismiss victims and their loved ones so cavalierly is not a direction I would take. I can foster some feelings toward a murderer but nowhere near what I feel for the loved ones of the person he slew. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Guest American Woman Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 I blame no one, but I'm dying for this conversation to move forward in any way possible. Yes, you did. But hopefully it's not a slow death ........... Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 Yes, you did. But hopefully it's not a slow death ........... Should I be worried ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Seems to me "'heart person' thinking'" has a place in the courts in the form of "victim impact" statements. Yes and no, AW. I'm beginning to believe that impact statements mean very little in Canadian courts. The judge is the one who determines the sentencing and he can and it would seem usually does ignore them! It seems like a sop, like smoke and mirrors. Everybody says "Oh, wasn't it wonderful that the little boy got to say how losing his father has hurt him so badly!" Meanwhile, when it comes to sentencing the little boy is nowhere around and his father's murderer may be out on the street before the child is out of his teens! Except as window dressing, victim impact statements don't seem to actually mean anything, as far as I can see. Certainly, if I was ever so unfortunate as to have to make one, I don't see how they would make me feel any better. Words are cheap! An innocent life is not. Edited March 1, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
dre Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 There is a point at which the argument comes down to values, which is part rational and part emotional. You can't intellectualize the basic elements of your beliefs. If you want to call that emotional, then that's a definition but we all have values that have these elements, I think, so it doesn't make sense to discount one set over another. The common values that we share are already part of our laws - the ones that we differ on are the seeds of these debates. For me its not about values. I think some criminals do deserve to be put to death. The problem isnt isnt that its morally wrong, its that it does not achieve any usefull policy objective. It does not reduce the rate at which capital crimes are committed, and it may even INCREASE the rate. Even if the death penalty doesnt conflict with your values it would still be bad public policy. It costs a bunch of money, and doesnt solve a problem. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest American Woman Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Yes and no, AW. I'm beginning to believe that impact statements mean very little in Canadian courts. The judge is the one who determines the sentencing and he can and it would seem usually does ignore them!It seems like a sop, like smoke and mirrors. Everybody says "Oh, wasn't it wonderful that the little boy got to say how losing his father has hurt him so badly!" Meanwhile, when it comes to sentencing the little boy is nowhere around and his father's murderer may be out on the street before the child is out of his teens! Except as window dressing, victim impact statements don't seem to actually mean anything, as far as I can see. Certainly, if I was ever so unfortunate as to have to make one, I don't see how they would make me feel any better. Words are cheap! An innocent life is not. Maybe you're right. If so, it's too bad, to put it mildly. I also think it's too bad that the victim's family members have to relive it so often when parole hearings come up and they have their say in it. Some sentences should not include the possibility of parole - but even that's no guarantee, as a new government could come in and change things. As I said, I don't support the death penalty, but understand those who do - and I believe that many of those who don't support it are acting on their emotional feelings - that they are emotional about deliberately taking a life. I think emotions play into both sides of the argument - yet it seems as if those supporting the death penalty are mostly the ones accused of basing their views on their emotions. Edited March 1, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 Even if the death penalty doesnt conflict with your values it would still be bad public policy. It costs a bunch of money, and doesnt solve a problem. But if my nation's policies don't align with my values, isn't that a problem ? If I don't morally agree with the actions of my nation, isn't it understandable that I want them to change ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Jack Weber Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 But if my nation's policies don't align with my values, isn't that a problem ? If I don't morally agree with the actions of my nation, isn't it understandable that I want them to change ? Sure it does... Interestingly enough,it's been my experience that the most vociferously "pro-life" are the most vociferous in support of the Death Penalty... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
cybercoma Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 But if my nation's policies don't align with my values, isn't that a problem ? If I don't morally agree with the actions of my nation, isn't it understandable that I want them to change ? Are we mixing up ethics with morality? I don't think the state can or should be moral because they change over time. Ethics, however, are supposed to be absolute. Quote
dre Posted March 1, 2012 Report Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) But if my nation's policies don't align with my values, isn't that a problem ? If I don't morally agree with the actions of my nation, isn't it understandable that I want them to change ? Its understandable for you to want that, but the fact that you want it is only one thing that needs to get considered. The government will have to create, manage, and fund this policy, and the courts will need to make sure its even legal. For these reasons the mob often does not get what they want. It has to survive a cost benefit analysis. What are the results of the policy, and are they worth the level of spending/taxing involved. Emotional decisions are usually bad ones, and the most important reason we have framework/constitutional documents is to prevent the government from being pressured into bad decisions by the mob in the heat of the moment. Criminals as a group are some of the people who need the protection of the law the MOST because they are so unpopular. The mob was perfectly happy lynching people accused of emotional crimes, and they showed up to cheer at public executions, and tortures. Edited March 1, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Its understandable for you to want that, but the fact that you want it is only one thing that needs to get considered. The government will have to create, manage, and fund this policy, and the courts will need to make sure its even legal. For these reasons the mob often does not get what they want. It has to survive a cost benefit analysis. What are the results of the policy, and are they worth the level of spending/taxing involved. Emotional decisions are usually bad ones, and the most important reason we have framework/constitutional documents is to prevent the government from being pressured into bad decisions by the mob in the heat of the moment. Criminals as a group are some of the people who need the protection of the law the MOST because they are so unpopular. The mob was perfectly happy lynching people accused of emotional crimes, and they showed up to cheer at public executions, and tortures. It's not an emotional decision, it's a values decision. Whether or not others agree with my values is not my problem. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Yes and no, AW. I'm beginning to believe that impact statements mean very little in Canadian courts. Just a question here, but really, why should they (and take this from a person that has had family on the receiving end of violent crime)? Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Just a question here, but really, why should they (and take this from a person that has had family on the receiving end of violent crime)? Because I believe that those who are injured have the first claim to justice! Long ago we gave up seeking justice as individuals or as clans because we accepted that the State, or King, had more resources than we did ourselves. This made it a much more level playing field, in that a rich and powerful baron no longer could murder or rob a peasant with impunity. We also came to believe that the State would always be fair and just, with sentences that were appropriate to the values of the ordinary citizenry. Somehow that appears to have changed over the years, or there would not be poll results showing such numbers of people who disagree with the sentencing for murder in Canada. From some of the discussion here in this thread it would appear that many people today believe that murder is ONLY a crime against the State and ONLY the State has the right to decide an appropriate sentence. Arguments are used that reflect the will of a minority, not the majority. Some even go so far as to state that their views, even if in the minority, must prevail because THEY believe that they are true and proper! In effect, their values are constants of the Universe, no matter how many of their fellow citizens disagree! As a populist, I just can't accept this as democratic. It is a value system that is imposed, not accepted, no matter how you paint it. I believe that is always wrong, no matter what the issue. With this growing disconnect between the values of the mainstream and those of our ruling system, it is not surprising to see voter participation dropping. More and more people are feeling that their values are ignored so why participate except to make a nice-looking sham that the MINORITY gets to brag about! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
eyeball Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Seems to me "'heart person' thinking'" has a place in the courts in the form of "victim impact" statements. A death penalty based on victim impact statements should be executed by the victim(s) making the statement. Let vengeance be their's if they want it that badly. Let the mistakes be on their conscience too. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Because I believe that those who are injured have the first claim to justice! But justice isn't about revenge, or even satisfaction. Justice, is supposed to be blind, handing out penalties and rehabilitation based on the law as it is written, and the fairness that comes from consistency with previous decisions. How you or I or even how the victim feels has little to do with the dispensation of justice, and should have little to do with it. Somewhere along the way, society forgot that sometimes, the majority can be wrong, that sometimes, the majority is the most dangerous thing. Just because we don't like a decision, that doesn't mean it wasn't just. Just because the decision doesn't reflect your values, doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the reality of the law, as well as the precedent that has come before it. Quote
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Let vengeance be their's if they want it that badly. Let the mistakes be on their conscience too. Exactly, which clearly demonstrates why they should hold little weight in court, because they have little to do with justice. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Exactly, which clearly demonstrates why they should hold little weight in court, because they have little to do with justice. The only reason I'm against the death penalty in certain cases is that a jury just might let a murderer off if there is a death penalty that they might have to consider. Death penalties do prevent further crimes by the murderer. There are cases where our pseudo 'Life Sentence' has granted leave to a murderer that should have never been allowed parole or opportunity to kill again. If life was actually life I would/could maybe accept that as an alternative to capital punishment. Take a look. http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.