Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

That was not the question I put to you, is it?  You said the system was prone to mistakes and I asked for a mistake not based on legal technicalities.  I'm still waiting.

---

What is the technicality?  The grounds for conviction were quite possibly based on bad reasoning.  If you were on trial and a 'professional' gets on the stand, gives bad testimony, and you get sentenced based on that bad testimony, how is that a 'legal technicality'?

---

Quote:

---

 

Quote:

---

The Griffin brothers were executed in 1915.  You had to go back almost a hundred years to prove your point that the system is prone to errors?  I think it proves exactly the opposite.

---

I found that example in minutes of a google search.  I didn't go back nearly 100 years in any sense that it took a lot of searching.  It's popular because the two men were actually exonerated after they were executed.  Besides, you didn't put any stipulations on what time frame the example could be from when you asked for one example.  The example is still relevant.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The death penalty in general.  I didn't think I could be any clearer.

---

I can think of a really easy way you can be clearer.  Directly refer to the subject you're speaking of in one of the sentences instead of referring to the subject as it.  You talked about 'potential for error' and 'errors' in those sentences.  It's not unreasonable for me to ask for clarification.  Besides, that second sentence is a mess.

Quote:

---

    Quote:


    From your posts I gather that you are in support of the death penalty.  Would you be opposed with, instead of a person being administered the death penalty, a guilty person being given a life sentence without parole?



If you actually read my posts you will find this, which you partially quoted but still seemingly could not understand:

---

What you quoted does not directly answer whether or not you would be opposed to a person being given a life sentence without parole over a death sentence.  All your post says is: 1) you agree any potential error is unacceptable (although, you accept potential for error because you are accepting of the death penalty - contradiction), 2) you believe errors are rare, 3) 'it' is not intrinsically wrong, 4) even one fuck up is too many (although, despite me giving you two examples of a fuck up, you are still accepting of the death penalty)

Your clarification of 'it' in this last post helps, but doesn't directly answer whether or not you would be opposed to a person being given a life sentence over the death penalty.  You should take your own advice about reading comprehension.

---

Quote:

---

Did he do it or not?  OJ got off but he did it.  He was not exonerated he was found not guilty.  Lots of other people get found not guilty because of prosecutorial malfeasance.  That does not mean they didn't do it.  William Ayers comes to mind.

---

Quote:

---

You still are coming nowhere near establishing that the system is "prone" to errors.  Not even a little close.  Do you know what "prone" means in that form?

---

Quote:

---

You're unbelievable.

---

Quote:

---

Poid said:
To all dissenters of my opinion regarding this issue: You have spent 9 pages trying to debunk and tear down my beliefs, and I have stood firm on my ground, but you have yet to give your own opinion on the matter. So what do you believe the fundamental role of the government "should" be? Do you believe in anarchy?

---

You haven't really stood your ground. You kind of just brushed things off with expressions of your own beliefs, rather than debating about, and with the use of, empirical facts about society, which is more egocentric than truly impartial. But, that isn't necessarily a bad thing since what you hold to be true in your view of reality might not hold true with others' views of reality. Thus, one could not say that your ideals or opinions are wrong while theirs are right.

But, anyways, my opinion on the matter is a bit broad. I believe the government is only necessary when the governed needs itself to be governed. Think of humanity like a growing child. Right now, it's at its 'teenage' stage where it hasn't fully understood itself, yet it shows signs of what is subconsciously innate within itself. It shows signs of humanistic ideals, such as brotherhood and humanitarian ethics, but also shows signs of humanistic, "primal" ideals, such as greed, violence, and ethnocentrism. So, I think the government's role should really just be about nurturing societal ideals that benefit society; because amending social beliefs leads to an amendment of society. Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other. But, I think the purpose of the government is much larger.
Also, the government mustn't stand in the way of human progression or evolution. By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution. But, by promoting good behavior, selflessness, and fellowship, the government enriches our belief system and entails progressive human involvement within our society.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:

Quote:

---

Poid said:
To all dissenters of my opinion regarding this issue: You have spent 9 pages trying to debunk and tear down my beliefs, and I have stood firm on my ground, but you have yet to give your own opinion on the matter. So what do you believe the fundamental role of the government "should" be? Do you believe in anarchy?

---

You haven't really stood your ground. You kind of just brushed things off with expressions of your own beliefs, rather than debating about, and with the use of, empirical facts about society, which is more egocentric than truly impartial.

---

This discussion isn't about any society in particular, and I am just expressing my beliefs about what the government "should" be like; it's not like I haven't defended my positions with logic.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
But, that isn't necessarily a bad thing since what you hold to be true in your view of reality might not hold true with others' views of reality.

---

...and vice-versa.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Thus, one could not say that your ideals or opinions are wrong while theirs are right.

---

Um, there are no "right" or "wrong" opinions.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
But, anyways, my opinion on the matter is a bit broad. I believe the government is only necessary when the governed needs itself to be governed.

---

That means that the government needs to exist, right?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Think of humanity like a growing child.

---

, why?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Right now, it's at its 'teenage' stage where it hasn't fully understood itself, yet it shows signs of what is subconsciously innate within itself.

---

Evidence?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
It shows signs of humanistic ideals, such as brotherhood and humanitarian ethics, but also shows signs of humanistic, "primal" ideals, such as greed, violence, and ethnocentrism.

---

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
So, I think the government's role should really just be about nurturing societal ideals that benefit society; because amending social beliefs leads to an amendment of society.

---

So you just want peoples' morals to be legislated?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

---

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
But, I think the purpose of the government is much larger.

---

Cool. I never said it wasn't.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Also, the government mustn't stand in the way of human progression or evolution.

---

I can agree with that, and I don't really see what the fuck government has to do with any of that in the first place.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

---

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
But, by promoting good behavior, selflessness, and fellowship...

---

It's not the role of the government to be promoting any agenda, IMO.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
...the government enriches our belief system and entails progressive human involvement within our society.

---

That is so not the government's role...

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
It shows signs of humanistic ideals, such as brotherhood and humanitarian ethics, but also shows signs of humanistic, "primal" ideals, such as greed, violence, and ethnocentrism.

---

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
So, I think the government's role should really just be about nurturing societal ideals that benefit society; because amending social beliefs leads to an amendment of society.

---

So you just want peoples' morals to be legislated?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

---

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
But, I think the purpose of the government is much larger.

---

Cool. I never said it wasn't.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Also, the government mustn't stand in the way of human progression or evolution.

---

I can agree with that, and I don't really see what the fuck government has to do with any of that in the first place.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

---

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
But, by promoting good behavior, selflessness, and fellowship...

---

It's not the role of the government to be promoting any agenda, IMO.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
...the government enriches our belief system and entails progressive human involvement within our society.

---

That is so not the government's role...

---

You get an A+ for misconstruing everything I said.


Are you in college, Poid? Like a legitimate university and not a community college?

Ask any cultural anthropologist professor whether or not he believes that humanity belongs to an ongoing progression; an evolution of ideals, morals, beliefs, etc.

Quote:

---

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they?

---

Actually, yes and no. Humans are capable of a vast range of emotions and morals. But the collective stance on morality is the direction of mankind's morality. Example: Slavery was once justified. Women once didn't have the same rights as men. Alcohol was once prohibited. Cold-blooded murder was once justifiable; think about the Crusades.


So, even though individual humans are capable of both brotherhood and violence, humanity as a whole moves in the direction of what is more prevalently believed. Thus, governments should nurture beliefs that are more beneficial to humanity, rather than promote violence, i.e. Iraq War, N. Korea's nuclear testing, etc.

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

---

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons?

---

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

---

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me?

---

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
You get an A+ for misconstruing everything I said.

---

I like how you always say that, and always fail to point out where I misconstrued what you said!

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Are you in college, Poid? Like a legitimate university and not a community college?

---

I'm from the SF Bay Area, which is in California; do you even know anything about the schools in this area?

To answer your question, though: No, I am not currently in college, but why would that matter? What in the fuck does that have to do with the ideas that we are discussing here?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Ask any cultural anthropologist professor whether or not he believes that humanity belongs to an ongoing progression; an evolution of ideals, morals, beliefs, etc.

---

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:

Quote:

---

Yeah, these traits are quite new for the human race, aren't they?

---

Actually, yes and no.

---

Actually, no.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Humans are capable of a vast range of emotions and morals.

---

You don't have to tell me that twice!

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
But the collective stance on morality is the direction of mankind's morality.

---

Who gives a shit? What does that have to do with government?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Example: Slavery was once justified. Women once didn't have the same rights as men. Alcohol was once prohibited. Cold-blooded murder was once justifiable; think about the Crusades.

---

Think about Guantanamo Bay!

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
So, even though individual humans are capable of both brotherhood and violence, humanity as a whole moves in the direction of what is more prevalently believed.

---

Your point being?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Thus, governments should nurture beliefs that are more beneficial to humanity, rather than promote violence, i.e. Iraq War, N. Korea's nuclear testing, etc.

---

You obviously don't believe in the phrase "To each their own"; there is no one set of beliefs that will benefit every single human equally.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Because humanity is constantly evolving, tard.

Unless you think humanity doesn't evolve.

---

I can think of humanity in whichever way I choose to think of it; of course I know that humanity evolves, but you're saying here that humanity is in its "teenage stage"; how in the fuck could you possibly even know this if you don't know what is in store for humanity in the future?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
By desensitizing humans to greed and selfishness, the government taints our beliefs and halts any progression in our evolution.

---

Um, do you have any evidence that our current government is intentionally doing this for those reasons?

---

Did I ever say they were?

---

Why would you even mention such random things unless that is what you were implying?

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Thus, it does umbrella the "fundamental role" of protecting ourselves from each other.

---

Then why in the fuck are you disagreeing with me?

---

Because you think it's the FUNDAMENTAL role, which it isn't. And you haven't really proven it to be either.

---