I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other - Political Discussion

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Best Posts Active Topics Galleries FAQ User List Calendar Chat Store Random Growery

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop for: Scales

Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next > [ show all ]

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 28 days, 12 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11395855 - 11/06/09 03:55 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Have you considered that government is often an example of a mass murderer on the largest scale?

I would say that giving government the "right" to kill people is a dangerous precedent.

Government likes to stretch the limits of it's mandated powers and it is naive to the extreme to think that government will only put dangerous felons to death.

That is the problem here, Poid.

Government historically lacks restraint. Sometimes the individual has the restraint to determine when someone needs to be put down. Id est: If a burglar breaks into Granny's home I truly hope she rips him apart with her shotgun.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,677
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11396651 - 11/06/09 08:18 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

I already explained pretty damn clearly when I believe the death penalty is appropriate

Pretty damn clear?

Let's see what you've said on the matter thus far...

Quote:

So do you not believe in the death penalty???

Quote:

You know, I haven't put too much thought into why I agree with the death penalty; I could say that it is an agreeable "policy", for lack of a better term, because of its deterrent effects, but it wouldn't deter suicidal martyrs. It would deter a good deal of thugs who want to kill but don't want to die, but that's about where its power as a deterrent ends.

I believe that I should be able to kill another person in cases of self-defense, and in cases where I could save another person's life; by imposing the death penalty on a thug, the country at large is defending itself and all its citizens' lives.

Quote:

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

Quote:

I am OK with the mass murder of thugs who, after going through a correctional facility's program (due to being convicted of a violent crime), continue on with their violent behavior; the risk factor is just too great for me to give a shit about them after that.

Quote:

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

Quote:

I said "people who kill", not death row inmates.

That is everything you have said about your views on the death penalty. You basically said:
1) you believe it has deterrant effects, but not for martyrs... only for people who don't want to die,
2) you believe imposing the death penalty saves lives,
3) you're against the death penalty when the only evidence is circumstantial,
4) you admit that mistakes are made in determining who get's the death penalty,
5) you're okay with the death penalty after the person has been convicted and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change,
6) you believe 'people who kill' are too expensive to imprison for life and that they should be killed instead.

That is all one can gather from your posts.

Now, as for #1, you agree that the death penalty doesn't work for someone who doesn't care about dying. I think it's safe to say that many of the psychopaths we're talking about here that would commit atrocious crimes don't give a shit about death. Just look at school shootings for instance. The outcome is almost always the shooter taking his own life. Furthermore, what kind of deterrant effect does it have when the criminal doesn't even know whether they will be sentenced to death or not? They may just get 10 years or one life sentence. Do you really think they're thinking about what their sentence will be when they're plotting to kill someone or a group of people?

#2 makes no sense. How does killing somebody safe a life? Considering that otherwise, if you don't kill that person, they will be locked away from society for life.

#3 and #4 are both features of the current use of the death penalty. Of course, you said you weren't talking about the 'real world', but only your 'beliefs'. This, despite the fact that you used McVeigh as support for your agreement with the death penalty by showing his picture. So sorry for assuming you were talking about the 'real world' after you used an example from the 'real world'

#5 - I'm curious to know how you would test to see if a criminal has 'changed their violent ways'. Let them loose? But that would endanger more people, and you're all for saving lives, right? So how? And I can't seem to remember McVeigh being given a chance to 'change his violent ways'... And yet you used him as an example despite such an example being against your personal beliefs, but yeah, you were 'completely clear' on your views on the death penalty.

#6 - I proved you wrong on this one; however, you turn to humor instead of addressing the point, and then try to say you weren't 'copping out'. You make a distinction between 'people who kill' and 'death row inmates'... We're talking about administering the death penalty here. How do you administer it to 'people who kill' without them, at some point, being on death row? And remember from point #5, you only agree with the death penalty after a person is convicted of a crime and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change... wonder how expensive that second part would be, since you express worry of cost? So if they're convicted, and they have to be, according to you, what do you do with them then?

How about instead of accusing me of 'projecting' you actually address some of my questions or at least clear up some of the inconsistencies I've pointed out?

Quote:

What kind of fucking question is this?
Whether the beings involved in said death penalty are mortal or "omnipotent" has nothing no bearing on my opinion.

Well, error is a current feature of the death penalty, and from #4 above, you seem to admit that. So you're okay with innocent people possibly being put to death as a side effect of the death penalty which you agree with? Please, instead of just accusing me of 'projecting', just answer the question. Unless an 'omnipotent' being is involved in deciding who gets the death penalty and who doesn't, there is always the chance that an innocent person will be accused. Feel free to prove otherwise, but that's the kind of 'question' that was.

Quote:

Not every US state enforces the death penalty; I am aware of many of the flaws that exist throughout the prison system, not just the those that exist within the death penalty. I don't completely agree with every state's administration of the death penalty, nor do I know every single little tid-bit of information for every state regarding the death penalty.

All I know is that if there's a dangerous criminal out there that is going to kill people no matter what, I want him dead.

So basically, you're saying you agree there are problems with the death penalty, but you still agree with it, overall (or at least your version of it, which I have many questions about). As for your last statement, how does the death penalty stop a person from killing? It's detterent effect? You even admitted that doesn't always work. Just look at how many people still steal, still sell drugs, still murder, despite the fact that the chances of them going to prison are good. People don't give a shit. They're going to do what they want to do. I think the detterent effects are bullshit, but again, please, feel free to prove otherwise.

If the person is locked up forever and can never hurt another person, that's not good enough for you?

--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11398558 - 11/06/09 01:07 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Have you considered that government is often an example of a mass murderer on the largest scale?

Of course I have, and I don't believe that this is something that the government needs to be given the power to do.

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
I would say that giving government the "right" to kill people is a dangerous precedent.

It can be, but I don't believe that any of the potential future dangers caused by a government are appropriate. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government likes to stretch the limits of it's mandated powers and it is naive to the extreme to think that government will only put dangerous felons to death.

That's what checks and balances are for; obviously, this isn't going to necessarily happen, it's just, IYO, at least a somewhat likely outcome. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Government historically lacks restraint.

...and I don't believe that this sort of thing is appropriate. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Sometimes the individual has the restraint to determine when someone needs to be put down. Id est: If a burglar breaks into Granny's home I truly hope she rips him apart with her shotgun.

What if the burglar kills Granny, and then gets caught by the police soon afterwords? :strokebeard:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
That is everything you have said about your views on the death penalty. You basically said:
1) you believe it has deterrant effects, but not for martyrs... only for people who don't want to die,
2) you believe imposing the death penalty saves lives,
3) you're against the death penalty when the only evidence is circumstantial,
4) you admit that mistakes are made in determining who get's the death penalty,
5) you're okay with the death penalty after the person has been convicted and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change,
6) you believe 'people who kill' are too expensive to imprison for life and that they should be killed instead.

That seems just about right. :thumbup:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
That is all one can gather from your posts.

Now, as for #1, you agree that the death penalty doesn't work for someone who doesn't care about dying.

I said it might not work, I didn't say that it necessarily won't be effective against these type of people.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
I think it's safe to say that many of the psychopaths we're talking about here that would commit atrocious crimes don't give a shit about death. Just look at school shootings for instance. The outcome is almost always the shooter taking his own life.

All "school shooters" may be suicidal psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are suicidal "school shooters"; please provide a source for the claim that "...many of the psychopaths we're talking about here that would commit atrocious crimes don't give a shit about death."

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Furthermore, what kind of deterrant effect does it have when the criminal doesn't even know whether they will be sentenced to death or not?

It can deter the criminal who was caught after the fact, and the criminal who has not yet killed. :shrug:

Or, it can deter neither of them. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
They may just get 10 years or one life sentence. Do you really think they're thinking about what their sentence will be when they're plotting to kill someone or a group of people?

I don't know, they may, or they may not. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#2 makes no sense. How does killing somebody safe a life? Considering that otherwise, if you don't kill that person, they will be locked away from society for life.

They can escape, they can be a danger to other inmates; those are two reasons right there.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#3 and #4 are both features of the current use of the death penalty. Of course, you said you weren't talking about the 'real world', but only your 'beliefs'. This, despite the fact that you used McVeigh as support for your agreement with the death penalty by showing his picture. So sorry for assuming you were talking about the 'real world' after you used an example from the 'real world'

I am talking about how I want the "real world" to be like in the future; McVeigh is already history. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#5 - I'm curious to know how you would test to see if a criminal has 'changed their violent ways'.

An intense psychological evaluation, parole, probation, etc... :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
But that would endanger more people, and you're all for saving lives, right?

I suppose it would be up to the government to decide what to do with this person. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
So how? And I can't seem to remember McVeigh being given a chance to 'change his violent ways'...

He already did the deed; the people who need to be given a second chance are the ones who either haven't killed, but seem to be likely to kill, and/or the ones who haven't committed as atrocious a crime as McVeigh did.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And yet you used him as an example despite such an example being against your personal beliefs, but yeah, you were 'completely clear' on your views on the death penalty.

Obviously, you've made a somewhat comprehensive list of my stated beliefs thus far regarding the death penalty; have I been unclear as of yet? :confused:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
#6 - I proved you wrong on this one; however, you turn to humor instead of addressing the point, and then try to say you weren't 'copping out'. You make a distinction between 'people who kill' and 'death row inmates'... We're talking about administering the death penalty here. How do you administer it to 'people who kill' without them, at some point, being on death row?

There is a distinction; not all death row inmates are guilty. :shrug:

To answer your question: A fair trial.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And remember from point #5, you only agree with the death penalty after a person is convicted of a crime and after the criminal goes through a correction program and doesn't change...

I don't think every person who murders somebody else should be put to death. :shrug:

Some people, IMO, are not worthy of being given a "second chance". :nonono:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
wonder how expensive that second part would be, since you express worry of cost? So if they're convicted, and they have to be, according to you, what do you do with them then?

Only people whose case seems worthy of being given a second chance shall have one.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
How about instead of accusing me of 'projecting' you actually address some of my questions or at least clear up some of the inconsistencies I've pointed out?

Alright, then how about you stop projecting? :strokebeard2:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

What kind of fucking question is this?
Whether the beings involved in said death penalty are mortal or "omnipotent" has nothing no bearing on my opinion.

Well, error is a current feature of the death penalty, and from #4 above, you seem to admit that. So you're okay with innocent people possibly being put to death as a side effect of the death penalty which you agree with?
Quote:

Nope, I've already stated that I don't completely agree with every way the death penalty is administered; I am not OK with having an innocent person be killed by the government.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Please, instead of just accusing me of 'projecting', just answer the question. Unless an 'omnipotent' being is involved in deciding who gets the death penalty and who doesn't, there is always the chance that an innocent person will be accused.

Source?

There's always a chance that anything can happen anywhere; I would appreciate an efficient death penalty system.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Not every US state enforces the death penalty; I am aware of many of the flaws that exist throughout the prison system, not just the those that exist within the death penalty. I don't completely agree with every state's administration of the death penalty, nor do I know every single little tid-bit of information for every state regarding the death penalty.

All I know is that if there's a dangerous criminal out there that is going to kill people no matter what, I want him dead.

So basically, you're saying you agree there are problems with the death penalty, but you still agree with it, overall (or at least your version of it, which I have many questions about).

I agree that some people need to be put down, and I don't agree with every single way that this is being done.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
As for your last statement, how does the death penalty stop a person from killing? It's detterent effect? You even admitted that doesn't always work.

What is your point here?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Just look at how many people still steal, still sell drugs, still murder, despite the fact that the chances of them going to prison are good.

People who do these things on a regular basis have found ways to do it without getting caught, so for them, in their mind (and probably in reality, too), their chances of getting caught are at least somewhat slim.

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
People don't give a shit. They're going to do what they want to do. I think the detterent effects are bullshit, but again, please, feel free to prove otherwise.

You don't think that the death penalty deters anybody from committing murder?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
If the person is locked up forever and can never hurt another person, that's not good enough for you?

It largely depends on the case.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Post Extras:

Gabbro
Stranger

Registered: 08/16/08
Posts: 34
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11401888 - 11/06/09 11:09 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

This somewhat reminds me of the "social contract theory' where we as citizens of a nation state 'give up' some of our basic rights to the so called government in order that more important rights are upheld and that social order is attained.

So is the government there to ensure smooth movement? Ideally, and theoretically, yes. However, I doubt this is really the case of any nation-state. I think the theoretical ideas about government, as US citizens know it anyway, merely are symptomatic features of a political theory lacking a historical or philosophical perspective.

Defining the government's primary responsibility in terms of social contract assumes that humans have rights to begin with! I have rarely met a person yet that can tell me why, by definition of being human, we deserve any rights at all...philosophers have been pondering this for years, however this is a digression from your main point...

The theoretical framework that is 'government' is really an ongoing metamorphic evolution of the 'ruling class'. (No I am not about to start spouting Marxism at you, ha!). The point isn't really to establish social order, rather the formation of 'government', I think anyway, is really a response to the changes that have been going since this thing started (who knows really when that occurred). It's evolution...and unless a new landmass (ie a new continent) is found, I highly doubt a massive restructuring, at least on that you suggest in your poll, can occur.

We had monarchies and kingdoms before, were they there to establish social order then? My guess is no. We had power hungry Kings, Queens, Emperors and the like well before humans even had an inkling about 'rights'...were they really there to protect ourselves from ourselves...I would say no...but hey I might be wrong! Rather I think that this democracy is an ongoing change of how the ruling class changes it's ways to stay in power.

Social contract runs into a chicken and egg problem simply because we had government and rule of law before rights existed. Likewise, a government is not there for us, but for them.

It's funny that many of us want it (revolution or restructuring), but I find it equally funny that we all know what the real consequences would be if this change occurred.

So in short...no and yes haha, but I think you already knew this answer to begin with :wink:

Post Extras:

RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis

Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,012
Loc: Boston

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11402068 - 11/06/09 11:54 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

I'm in doubt about the morality of the death penalty issue for one reason. I question the utilitarian notion that one unjust death caused by the penalty is worth the benefits derived from it. Morally speaking, it is a monstrous act to kill an innocent individual and that one act would poison the whole idea behind the penalty.

If we could ensure somehow that ONLY those who were given the penalty were convicted with 100% certainty would I be for it.

Essentially I think the death penalty may not be justified in an ideal society, let alone in this corrupt culture and political system.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: RationalEgo]
#11404140 - 11/07/09 10:32 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Gabbro said:
This somewhat reminds me of the "social contract theory' where we as citizens of a nation state 'give up' some of our basic rights to the so called government in order that more important rights are upheld and that social order is attained.

Either the "social contract theory", or "anarchy", which would you prefer?

Have you even seen what prisoner-type people look/behave like? :strokebeard:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
So is the government there to ensure smooth movement? Ideally, and theoretically, yes. However, I doubt this is really the case of any nation-state. I think the theoretical ideas about government, as US citizens know it anyway, merely are symptomatic features of a political theory lacking a historical or philosophical perspective.

How so?

Quote:

Gabbro said:
Defining the government's primary responsibility in terms of social contract assumes that humans have rights to begin with! I have rarely met a person yet that can tell me why, by definition of being human, we deserve any rights at all...philosophers have been pondering this for years, however this is a digression from your main point...

What are you even saying here? Do you want the population, including some of your family and friends, to be liquidized? :what:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
The theoretical framework that is 'government' is really an ongoing metamorphic evolution of the 'ruling class'. (No I am not about to start spouting Marxism at you, ha!). The point isn't really to establish social order, rather the formation of 'government', I think anyway, is really a response to the changes that have been going since this thing started (who knows really when that occurred). It's evolution...and unless a new landmass (ie a new continent) is found, I highly doubt a massive restructuring, at least on that you suggest in your poll, can occur.

Do you have any sources for your initial claim here?

It really doesn't matter how doubtful my vision of what I believe the government "should" be like is. Really, it doesn't. :shrug:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
We had monarchies and kingdoms before, were they there to establish social order then? My guess is no. We had power hungry Kings, Queens, Emperors and the like well before humans even had an inkling about 'rights'...were they really there to protect ourselves from ourselves...I would say no...but hey I might be wrong! Rather I think that this democracy is an ongoing change of how the ruling class changes it's ways to stay in power.

This is a democratic republic.

Quote:

Gabbro said:
...a government is not there for us, but for them.

Not in my vision of how I want the government to operate. :shake:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
It's funny that many of us want it (revolution or restructuring), but I find it equally funny that we all know what the real consequences would be if this change occurred.

Nobody knows shit. :glittershitz:

Quote:

Gabbro said:
So in short...no and yes haha, but I think you already knew this answer to begin with

Since I'm alive, I want to be able to live a long life without worrying about being killed by some random thug.

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
I'm in doubt about the morality of the death penalty issue for one reason. I question the utilitarian notion that one unjust death caused by the penalty is worth the benefits derived from it. Morally speaking, it is a monstrous act to kill an innocent individual and that one act would poison the whole idea behind the penalty.

How is someone who murders others an "innocent individual"? :confused:

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
If we could ensure somehow that ONLY those who were given the penalty were convicted with 100% certainty would I be for it.

That's the way I look at it. :thumbup:

Quote:

RationalEgo said:
Essentially I think the death penalty may not be justified in an ideal society, let alone in this corrupt culture and political system.

Some people are just nothing but mange. :nonono:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 28 days, 12 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11409942 - 11/08/09 07:21 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

The problem that I am seeing with your view is that you suppose that government will, for some reason, behave benevolently....

History has shown government to be a mass murderer. Capital punishment is merely a government monopoly on murder.

I do not see how that is moral.

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,677
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Gabbro]
#11417402 - 11/09/09 07:56 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Obviously, you've made a somewhat comprehensive list of my stated beliefs thus far regarding the death penalty; have I been unclear as of yet?

And I pointed out inconsistencies in your statements and came up with many questions for you, so yeah, you haven't been very clear until this post.

Basically, what I gather from all of your posts, is that you support the death penalty in an 'ideal world'. Is this correct?

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417497 - 11/09/09 08:27 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
The problem that I am seeing with your view is that you suppose that government will, for some reason, behave benevolently....

I believe that it "should"; I never made such a supposition...

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
History has shown government to be a mass murderer. Capital punishment is merely a government monopoly on murder.

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Obviously, you've made a somewhat comprehensive list of my stated beliefs thus far regarding the death penalty; have I been unclear as of yet?

And I pointed out inconsistencies in your statements and came up with many questions for you, so yeah, you haven't been very clear until this post.

Basically, what I gather from all of your posts, is that you support the death penalty in an 'ideal world'. Is this correct?

It's pretty damn close, I suppose... :strokebeard:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,677
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11417551 - 11/09/09 08:41 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

And since we live in anything but an ideal world, it would be inaccurate to say that you support the death penalty then, right?

Quote:

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Depends on what state you live in.

Edited by pothead_bob (11/09/09 08:42 AM)

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417567 - 11/09/09 08:44 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
And since we live in anything but an ideal world, it would be inaccurate to say that you support the death penalty then, right?

Quote:

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Depends on what state you live in.

What do you mean "inaccurate"? I am presenting my political beliefs here in this political debate forum; are you saying that my said beliefs will necessarily not manifest into reality because this is not an ideal world? :strokebeard2:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417571 - 11/09/09 08:45 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

Depends on what state you live in.

It probably does, and I don't agree with any law that prohibits a person to murder in the name of self-defense.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,677
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11417611 - 11/09/09 08:53 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

What do you mean "inaccurate"? I am presenting my political beliefs here in this political debate forum; are you saying that my said beliefs will necessarily not manifest into reality because this is not an ideal world?

I mean, before when you said 'you mean you don't support the death penalty???? :eek:

', I assumed that you do support the death penalty. And I assumed that you supported the death penalty that is enforced currently, in this non-idealized world. From your posts, after that, I'm gathering that you don't really support the death penalty. However, you would support it in an ideal world.

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11417725 - 11/09/09 09:13 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that? :shrug2:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

Mr.Al
Alphabet soup

Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 28 days, 12 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11424561 - 11/10/09 06:38 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that?

Saying that you believe in something is not a rational argument.

"If implemented properly"... When is anything that the government does implemented "prop :crazy2:

erly"?

What the fuck does "implemented properly" even mean anyway?

--------------------
Ludwig von Mises Institute,Campaign for Liberty.,The Oath Keeper's

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Mr.Al]
#11426494 - 11/10/09 12:57 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
Saying that you believe in something is not a rational argument.

I believe my rational argument for this belief of mine is all over this thread... :strokebeard:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
"If implemented properly"... When is anything that the government does implemented "properly"?

When I broke my wrist, my Medi-Cal went through without any problems. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
What the fuck does "implemented properly" even mean anyway?

It can mean a lot of things; basically, the reason I said that was to show that I do not believe that every single person who is put to death by the government was put to death justifiably, and that I do believe that there are some instances where the death penalty is appropriate.

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

pothead_bob
Resident Pothead

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,677
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11426816 - 11/10/09 01:37 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that?

I don't see how a system that is overly expensive and prone to errors that can result in state sponsered murdering of innocent people is a benefit to society... Since it isn't implemented properly at this point in time, I'm reading this statement as you don't support it, but that you're open to the idea pending fixing the system.

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 5 minutes, 5 seconds

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11427005 - 11/10/09 02:05 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

It is not "prone" to errors. They are stunningly rare.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Poid
deBunker

Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: pothead_bob]
#11429232 - 11/10/09 08:29 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Quote:

I don't support it in every instance, but I do believe that it is a benefit to society, if implemented properly. I believe in a death penalty; how about that?

I don't see how a system that is overly expensive and prone to errors that can result in state sponsered murdering of innocent people is a benefit to society...

The system that I would agree with would be error-free. :shrug:

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
Since it isn't implemented properly at this point in time, I'm reading this statement as you don't support it, but that you're open to the idea pending fixing the system.

You are basically correct; how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Obviously, not every state implements the death penalty, and not every state that does implement the death penalty implements it in exactly the same way; when you ask me "Do you agree with the death penalty?", it is a loaded question because there are many death penalties, and many possible death penalties that don't even exist.

Like I said, I believe that some people who take other peoples' lives should be put to death; it's really not that fucking complicated. :shrug2:

--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan

Post Extras:

meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva

Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,279
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 6 days, 7 hours

Re: I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other [Re: Poid]
#11431068 - 11/11/09 01:56 AM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:

Quote:

Mr.Al said:
History has shown government to be a mass murderer. Capital punishment is merely a government monopoly on murder.

Not exactly; we have the right to murder others in the name of self-defense, no?

No. No one has the right to kill. But we all have the right to live. Thus, if our lives were to be threatened, we shall act accordingly.

If the government has the right to kill, then why shouldn't we? Somehow, they can play God and pick-and-choose who dies and who doesn't? And based on what context? Their own laws that they created?
The government can't even obey its own civil laws, so what is the point of living by them individually as citizens?

--------------------
大开眼界

:awegroove:

~~Hasta siempre, comandante.~~
:mattz:

Post Extras:

Jump to top.

Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next > [ show all ]

Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
New Orleans - small government and less tax....	Alex213	428	14	09/18/05 08:26 AM by luvdemshrooms
Top 10 misconceptions about government	silversoul7	471	13	07/17/07 05:46 PM by Phred
Government Gets OK To Distribute Propaganda	Ravus	595	12	02/07/05 03:10 AM by Seuss
Why Do We Need Government? ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )	Skeptikos	1,885	103	05/20/06 10:46 AM by beatnicknick
The Government	DailyPot	406	9	05/13/03 06:39 PM by barfightlard
Palin: Government wants to 'control the people' ( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )	Dudeyourgone	2,173	237	06/17/09 07:31 AM by lonestar2004
Slavery and Government Intervention versus Voters and the People	Ravus	425	7	01/26/05 05:55 PM by Phred
can the government make you wear a helmet? ( 1 2 all )	chodamunky	984	36	05/22/11 05:19 AM by communeart

Extra information

You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
2,842 topic views. 3 members, 2 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]

del.icio.us digg Furl MyWeb reddit StumbleUpon