Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

12 Apr 2014, 9:09 pm

If our society was pro-death, what could go wrong? Meaning pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-death sentence, pro-gene selection, pro-suicide (for instance I sell my organs in advance, travel a bit and then go die under contract. suicide tourism), (pro-human cloning..) you name it. It would be natural selection at its best.

For instance, death sentence was abandoned in US in order to protect those wrongly convicted. Was the rate that high? Was it to appeal to voters? Maybe it would pay off in a larger scheme of things, prisoners are high maintenance. Or are prisons profitable? That aside... If we were pro-rational-death, what could go wrong? Why aren't we?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,442
Location: temperate zone

12 Apr 2014, 11:22 pm

There was a "pro death" party that got voted into office and ran some country in Europe for about 12 years. It was into alot of what you propose. The country was -ya know- that place next door to France. The head of state was .....Adolf....something.

Hardly anything went wrong. Well-there was genocide- and the total destruction of Europe. A few things like that. Nothin' major.

The US has not given up the death penalty. Every other industrialized country has gone further in that direction than we have. Its been phased out of many states because its considered inhumane. But one of the few arguments traditionally used to uphold the death penalty was that "there is no record of any innocent person ever being executed in the USA". But now with DNA testing technology its been shown that innocent people have frequently been executed. Oops!

The economics of execution is counterintuitive. Before they can execute you they allow you to go through appeals, and more appeals, spending tax dollars on lawyers. By the time they put a perp to death they spend more money than it wouldve taken to support them in a penitentionary for a 100 years. Its actually MORE expensive to execute you than to not execute you.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

12 Apr 2014, 11:31 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
There was a "pro death" party that got voted into office and ran some country in Europe for about 12 years. It was into alot of what you propose. The country was -ya know- that place next door to France. The head of state was .....Adolf....something.

Hardly anything went wrong. Well-there was genocide- and the total destruction of Europe. A few things like that. Nothin' major.

The US has not given up the death penalty. Every other industrialized country has gone further in that direction than we have. Its been phased out of many states because its considered inhumane. But one of the few arguments traditionally used to uphold the death penalty was that "there is no record of any innocent person ever being executed in the USA". But now with DNA testing technology its been shown that innocent people have frequently been executed. Oops!

The economics of execution is counterintuitive. Before they can execute you they allow you to go through appeals, and more appeals, spending tax dollars on lawyers. By the time they put a perp to death they spend more money than it wouldve taken to support them in a penitentionary for a 100 years. Its actually MORE expensive to execute you than to not execute you.


If the only people in prison were people convicted of violent crimes, the cost of housing prisoners would be sharply cut. If we would stop throwing people in prison for drug offenses... well, ya, except for the fact that too many people are getting rich from putting people in prison. Iif we start killing people off it will cut into the profits of the money fetishists.



cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

12 Apr 2014, 11:43 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Hardly anything went wrong. Well-there was genocide- and the total destruction of Europe. A few things like that. Nothin' major.
<...>
Its actually MORE expensive to execute you than to not execute you.

Nazis weren't pro death per se, you say a combination of democracy and pro-death is impossible? Also, pro-death is just a horrid sounding name I gave, we can call it something nicer. Like pro-advancement. It's a matter of everyone's personal choice (except for death penalty and genetically deformed babies, that's a choice of community). I think it's inhumane that I have to pay my tax money to feed these people while barely getting by myself. Also it's not fair or constructive to compare the two, really.

We could cut costs of execution for "obvious" cases. I'm not saying to kill off every criminal, but for instance people like Dahmer and whatnot. And for instance I don't think death penalty in China is doing that bad.



Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

13 Apr 2014, 3:50 am

cannotthinkoff wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Hardly anything went wrong. Well-there was genocide- and the total destruction of Europe. A few things like that. Nothin' major.
<...>
Its actually MORE expensive to execute you than to not execute you.

Nazis weren't pro death per se, you say a combination of democracy and pro-death is impossible? Also, pro-death is just a horrid sounding name I gave, we can call it something nicer. Like pro-advancement. It's a matter of everyone's personal choice (except for death penalty and genetically deformed babies, that's a choice of community). I think it's inhumane that I have to pay my tax money to feed these people while barely getting by myself. Also it's not fair or constructive to compare the two, really.

We could cut costs of execution for "obvious" cases. I'm not saying to kill off every criminal, but for instance people like Dahmer and whatnot. And for instance I don't think death penalty in China is doing that bad.


You're instilling a lot of undue confidence in the discernment and good-will of the legal system if you think that only people guilty of serious crimes are going to get the death penalty. The Justice system is susceptible to corruption like all human institutions, and fallible even with the best of intentions.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,224
Location: Reading, England

13 Apr 2014, 8:44 am

Perhaps we could do with being less anti-death, but this talk of "pro-death" is a bit unsettling.

I am anti-death penalty, and respect people's right to abortion and euthanasia, but being "pro" those things doesn't sit right with me. We need to have respect for the right of sentient beings to be alive.



leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

13 Apr 2014, 9:43 am

Let me get this straight, you want to kill people in prisons because you can't afford your Netflix subscription or whatever?

Ask your government not to spend your tax money on the military, and I promise you, you will be rolling in dough. Of course, then the military will want to kill you for taking away their living, but what the hey, you can't have it both ways.



cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

13 Apr 2014, 11:13 am

I'm not going to defend my pro-death sentence views, your arguments are really weak and emotional. In the long run I'm convinced it would help.

So instead of calling this pro death, lets call it pro respect to rights.. Like, pro-respect to my right for revenge when someone kills my brother. Pro-respect not to be raped and then killed, pro-respect not to be ruled by banks.

I'm saying we should actively shape society, and not just let stuff live. You have right to live only if you respect others



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

13 Apr 2014, 11:31 am

cannotthinkoff wrote:
I'm not going to defend my pro-death sentence views, your arguments are really weak and emotional. In the long run I'm convinced it would help.

Then why are you posting your views here? :shrug:


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

13 Apr 2014, 11:31 am

cannotthinkoff wrote:
I'm not going to defend my pro-death sentence views, your arguments are really weak and emotional. In the long run I'm convinced it would help.

So instead of calling this pro death, lets call it pro respect to rights.. Like, pro-respect to my right for revenge when someone kills my brother. Pro-respect not to be raped and then killed, pro-respect not to be ruled by banks.

I'm saying we should actively shape society, and not just let stuff live. You have right to live only if you respect others


Either you are swayed by the inevitability of the innocent being put to death, or you aren't :shrug:



cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

13 Apr 2014, 11:34 am

GGPViper wrote:
cannotthinkoff wrote:
I'm not going to defend my pro-death sentence views, your arguments are really weak and emotional. In the long run I'm convinced it would help.

Then why are you posting your views here? :shrug:

That is not what I meant



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,801
Location: USA

13 Apr 2014, 1:40 pm

cannotthinkoff wrote:
It would be natural selection at its best.


Doing anything for the sake of natural selection is pure idiocy. No matter what, natural selection occurs, and ultimately it doesn't help anyone as it's a natural phenomena that doesn't build to anything.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

13 Apr 2014, 3:14 pm

It is not our arguments that are emotional, or, indeed weak. Besides, emotion is a key part of human existence, leaving it out of equation is like forgetting to include breathable air when designing interstellar travel vehicles.

Taking lives is a taboo topic for a very good reason. Perhaps even a quantum reason. But for now, the moral reason is plenty enough. Minority Report was a good movie, have you seen it?



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

13 Apr 2014, 3:36 pm

cannotthinkoff wrote:
for instance I sell my organs in advance, travel a bit and then go die under contract


You could do that right now. It's harder than selling your old lawnmower and arranging a plumber or dentist, sure, but you could still do it if you found the right people.

Quote:
For instance, death sentence was abandoned in US in order to protect those wrongly convicted. Was the rate that high?


What rate would you deem 'that high'? There have been many, many people in the UK convicted of murder later found to be innocent who would have been killed under the death penalty. I don't want to be one. Do you?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU[/youtube]

Quote:
your arguments are really weak and emotional. In the long run I'm convinced it would help.


Your arguments are equally emotional. Just as easy to say you display a sentimental attachment to the idea of paying less in tax, or of shaping society in some way that appeals to you.

Not giving a f**k if innocent people are put to death for a crime they did not commit doesn't make you less 'emotional' or more 'rational'.

Ganondox wrote:
cannotthinkoff wrote:
It would be natural selection at its best.


Doing anything for the sake of natural selection is pure idiocy. No matter what, natural selection occurs, and ultimately it doesn't help anyone as it's a natural phenomena that doesn't build to anything.


+1000


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

13 Apr 2014, 3:50 pm

leafplant wrote:
It is not our arguments that are emotional, or, indeed weak. Besides, emotion is a key part of human existence, leaving it out of equation is like forgetting to include breathable air when designing interstellar travel vehicles.

Taking lives is a taboo topic for a very good reason. Perhaps even a quantum reason. But for now, the moral reason is plenty enough. Minority Report was a good movie, have you seen it?


I've seen it a few times. But the way they resolved it.. I felt that usually these scifi dystopian movies as solved in a way to please audiences.

The only reason I see is that we are not that advanced yet. It's going to happen one way or another.

For instance not allowing for terminally ill patients to die with dignity is a clear breach of human rights. But oh, it's a taboo. It's not rational and not humane. It's just a public pleasing who are too uncomfortable to face the real hardships some have to face. Also probably it's a religious artifact too.

Basically people can't imagine that they themselves could be wrongfully executed, so no. That they could've been aborted, so no. It's so adorable how they judge things from their comfy chairs to deal with all the unpleasant emotions these discussions cause.

We have so many people on this planet. Why do we need so many? We allow suffering simply because it's inconvenient to admit it.