NoGenlefBhind said:
the most annoying thing about questions like this are the answers that people give when you just know they didn't really think their answer through.
the problem is that it's an objective type question and most of the people that are anti-death penalty answer it in a like manner, they answer it objectively, from a distance, with no personal involvement beyond the hastily sketched ideals they offer as explanation.
people that are pro-death penalty, like myself, are more able to view the question in subjective terms and answer accordingly.
'what if this happened to my child... what would I want to do to the guilty party'
that's what drives me nuts about questions like this... because too many people let their ideals and lofty aspirations toward the 'meaning of life' interfere with their honesty.
ask any opponent of the death penalty what they would do if given the opportunity to go back and kill Adolph Hitler before the start of WWII.
Nearly all of them, except the fools, would say 'yes, I would kill him'
there goes their argument out the window right there. there's the hypocrisy lying just beneath their previous bullshit answer.
of course that's an extreme example.. but that's exactly how you get to the true nature of someone without all the pretense and hubris complicating what is a perfectly understandable concept:
Life is not a gift.. it is a consequence
Life is not a right... it is an outcome
We are no more 'alive' than the spider that gets stepped on, or the rabid dog that gets put down and within that true context, we have every right to rid ourselves of those whose sole purpose of existing is the grave harm of others.
Every single person, whether they're conscious of it or not, is for the death penalty.. those that would contradict that statement just haven't reached that level of understanding yet, their specific situations have not put that choice before them so, presently, they're still wrapped and tied by the ideals of what they 'think' as opposed to what they would 'do'.
Every single person would kill when necessary.. and that is exactly what the death penalty is.
|
So fallacious...
It really doesn't matter what you think of someone else or if you think someone is deceiving themselves, it is what it is. You add nothing to the conversation when you tell people how they feel.
There is no basis for a lower understanding here, its differing perspectives. As I have said previously, to me it isn't morally right to kill people, and to go back on those morals based on somebody elses actions is corrupt. If you have a view then hold yourself to it, don't make compromises based off of vengeful emotions, leave that for the little kids and teenagers. With your line of thinking there is no room for improvement, you simply accept the terms of your emotions and just think, KILL the muderer. The continuity of this barbarism isn't exactly going to help or rid the world of barbarism.
You say certain people have a lower understanding based on the fact that we haven't been put in that situation? Really? So what do you say about the people who have had a family member murdered and then turn around and say they forgive the killer or that the killer had obvious mental issues and should be put in a hospital? Maybe those are the people with a higher understanding...afterall, the best decisions are those that aren't made the blockage of emotions. Cool, calm, collected minds are the ones that make the clearest decisions.
An inmate on deathrow could be put to good use and in a very resourceful manner that would benefit a lot of people. Medical sciences could use inmates as subjects for clinical tests being one example.
Emotional bias is a strong energy, the trick is to not let it make the decisions for you.
