I agree the depiction of it on swordfish was primarily to look cool, that much was obvious when watching the scene. However, the *technology* behind it is not ridiculous.
Thus, if a person would want to look cool (to less critical people than pragmatic slashdotters;-), it is completely feasable to have a system with six 3D screens set up in the way it was in Swordfish. In fact, it's currently more feasable than going to Mars in search of an alien artifact and getting scanned at the local spaceport.
The author shouldn't compare apples with oranges if he wants to make his point: the *technological* feasability is not the same his opinion about how ridiculous something looks.
The claim that something similar to the system depicted in swordfish is ridiculous, is on itself ridiculous. Multi-monitors are nothing new; even ordinary PC users with a decent graphic-card can already link two. Currently, there are already systems which can handle *more* then 6 screens.
And as far as the 3D goes:
"HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. -- August 9, 2004
Sharp Systems of America, a division of Sharp Electronics Corporation, today introduced the Sharp LL-151-3D display, Sharp's first stand-alone display that features Sharp's 3D LCD Technology. This exciting 15-inch 3D LCD monitor delivers eye-popping 3D images to the naked eye, and can be easily switched between 2D and 3D viewing for standard applications such as spreadsheets, word processing or email. "
I liked your post as well. It made an interesting comparison between the SF and our own timeframe/societies in which it was made. while I'm not sure if it's all that clear cut (you have sci-fi movies that just depict a specific idea too, IMHO, without it being a reflection of the actual society in which the author lived; e.g. solient green, THX 1138, GATACA,...).
But you do make a compelling case for popular Sci-fi shows, and I think there is actually a lot of truth in the claim you made. Especially for the Captain Kirk era... ah, I'm actually nostalgic about that. (Not that I'm from that era, but it's probably because I saw the show when it came out in my country as a little kid, about 7-8 years old, wide-eyed and completely captivated. "Oooooh!...An 'energy-field'...in the form of a giant hand! *gasp* *suspense*:-))
I also thought the 'boinking the native females / white chick' was rather funny'.;-)
"To be honest I agree with you regarding a constitution: we have an "unwritten constitution" apparently, which is basically a bad joke, as I'm sure any American would agree."
I wouldn't know; I'm European;-)
It's true that in a system with elections - as long as they remain in place - it's unlikely that a government will actual terrorise the majority of its population (if it wants to be re-elected, anyway), which could happen in a totalitarian system with a dictator. This, however, does not guarantee anything to the minorities in that country.
Well, it's a difficult subject. Personnaly, I've always thought that an 'enlightened dictatorship' would theorethically be better then a democracy - the problem with that is, that it's impossible to achieve in reality (and if it were, impossible to maintain it 'enlightened'. So I guess we're stuck with democracy as 'least bad' of the governing systems.
"in that CCTV is currently a beneficial technology"
And so is facial recognition technology. I think that's just the point. It being 'beneficial' is wholy dependend on what you consider to be most important; your privacy or your feeling of security.
Common, you seem a rather rational person, after all; you must see that facial recognition can be a 'benefical technology' as well if the premise is, that it brings more security. Whether it actually does or doesn't is a matter of debate, but that's true of the CCTV too; I doubt the social causes of the problems, nor the behaviour itself really dissapears with the instalment of the cameras - it just moves to somewhere or something else.
Surely, a case could be made for facial recognition; say, the secret service gives out a list of faces of terrorists (their favorite excuse): the moment that terrorist shows his face in the city, he's spotted, and can be arersted, or, even better, surveilled. With enough camera's you can see where he is, what he does, where he has been, with whome he talked, etc. In fact, the system is a potential goldmine to increase security; the possibilities of fighting crime are staggering - especially when you make it by law a necessity that every citizen and everyone visiting the country needs to be taken a scan of his face.
"Now, and you were saying? Something about being beneficial? Well, my dear chap, ofcourse it is!" And there walks away the policecommander, satisfied that he explained the benefits of the new system, just like he did with all the former systems.
Your point is, that current CCTV is less intrusive than facial recognition systems, which is true. My point is, facial recognition is potentially more intrusive, but it is potentially far more beneficial in combatting crime too.
So what argument are you going to give to someone who says "that facial recognition is a beneficial technology" in 10 years, and *you* are complaining about it? Since it's about balancing privacy-invasion against it being 'beneficial', *exactly* the same case can be made for facial recognition as you make for CCTV.
In fact, a complete and total (especially secret) surveillance of all citizens, including in their homes, would be defendable on that basis too, because think of the unbelievable benefits it would bring in combatting crime, including domestic violence and even more unsavory crimes that might be going on in the seclusion of private homes!
Fact is, if you're willing to give up privacy for a feeling of security, there can always be made a case it is beneficial, as long as one feels that more security is gained.
"Do you have any non-fictional examples of this kind of creeping totalitarianism?"
Yes, the UK. My point was exactly that the creeping is going on right now. Some other democracies are also on that path, albeit less steeply.
"which I would define as reaching a point where it is difficult to elect a new government to repeal the objectionable laws, if the majority of the populace wanted this to happen."
Aha. I would define it otherwise. I also look at other common elements of totalitarian states, such as the manner in which an individuals' liberty and freedom gets more and more trampled upon, the rule of law gets curbed in the name of security, citizens are under increasing surveillance from the state, etc.
The argument about 'majority' is a two-edged sword; it is necessary for a democracy, true, but, IMHO, not enough on its own (the US has a constitution to keep things a bit more in check). There is something called 'the dictatorship of the majority', after all. And even if the majority doesn't want it, does it actually get things repealed with ease? Did the UK government redraw its soldiers in Iraq, since the majority wanted it?
While a classic dictatorship doesn't allow elections (well, Sadam was supposedly elected too, but..yeah), for me, it's also about whether or not enough other elements of a dictatorship are present to call something totalitarian. At the end, it doesn't matter if an individual has no more freedom and rights than in a totalitarian system because of a dictator, or because of the apathy or even the 'wanting' of the majority of the populace.
"and at that point it doesn't matter if it's a camera, a policeman or a seventy foot tall mechanised horror telling you not to"
With the difference a polican isn't going to wacth you 24/24 on every corner of the street and record everything you're doing.
People seem to forget:
1)police and government have often shown to be corrupt 2)all laws are just 3)a society that would strictly follow every law made would choke to a standstill
As for 1; one could say 'then sue the corrupted officials, but...since cameras are far more anonymous, it's far more difficult to actually get a police-officer or someone from the government sued and convicted if they are corrupt (it already does not have a good trackrecord, in that regard). It would even be impossible to know if someone was out of line; if I see a police-oficer stalking me, and recording evrything I do, I can go to him and confront him, and eventually sue him. Can I do the same with some camera hanging there? No. Furthermore, viewed as a matter of principle, it doesn't do you any good; even if the corrupted get caught, there will be others that take their place; there is no governement that has not known corruption...again...and again...and again. It's just in human nature. This is true with or without cameras and other similar surveillance technology, but since the contact used to be limited, the chances of you being abused by corrupted officials was limited too. Now they have augmented the surveillance while at the same time reduced the risk of being hold responsable for their actions. It ultimately boils down to the question; who will watch the watchers?
As for 2; we all know some laws are just bullocks, made up by some politicians who wanted to prove a point, stroke their ego, were lobbied by corporations, or simply failed to see the consequences. In short, you have bad laws. Now, one could say; then change the law, but in reality, this is far from being that easy, just because of those egos, those making of points, the lobbying...and then you still have something called 'the tyranny of the majority'. As long as there is a reasonable way of escaping those bad laws, that doesn't matter much; people can just readily ignore those bad laws. If you're monitored 24/24, you can't. Yes, that goes for good laws being ignored too, but the difference is, people that brake those don't care about that anyway.
as for 3; a prime example I still remember is that one time, the trainstation was in complete chaos; trains were delayed, had to be diverted, etc. When asked if they were on strike, they told me they weren't, that they simply were executing something that would translate into 'pointly action'. What it meant was, they followed EXACTLY the rules and laws that were made to govern them, with the result everything went beserk. The fact is, almost all things and srvices in a society work, because people make it work. They're 'creative' with the laws (even the good ones), to make sure things get done. You would be surprised of what would happen if everything that were laid down in rules and laws would be followed to the letter; it would lead to disaster.
Now, making sure that everything works by bending (even good) laws is only going to be readily happening when those who do it know they won't get in trouble for it; obviously, if you know every move you make is being recorded and can be used against you, this will have a chilling effect. Ofcourse, criminals won't care about it, since they are already breaking the law.
My point is, even when one claims it could have positive effects, people seem to miss there is a drawback too.
Supporters always ask, what's the difference, whether it are camera's or cops... but would you *really* want a cop on every streetcorner (which is only the case in totalitarian states, btw) who follow your every move, 24/24 and 7/7, and record everything you do? Are you that scared of your own society? In any case, it would freak *me* out, and if that were the reality, many others too, I presume. Yet, when the same happens with cameras, some people start defending it.
"Unfortunatly, there has grown up a culture of yobbish behaviour amoung a small but significant minority of manily young people who, for whatever reason, feel the need to express their anti-social anti-establisment feelings at every opportunity."
Yes, and cameras will solve the cause of that behaviour and root it out. It's quite obvious: the more cameras we place, the more problems of society go away.
Lol...I just read this, and you ARE using the 'the slippery slope isn't true' defence! You're doing just as I said in my other post to you.
Of course there is a difference, and it won't happen tommorow, that's for sure. But there's a huge difference between the first camera's who were placed on a handful of crossroads to watch the numberplates of speeding cars, and the multitude of cameras today that watch people 24/24... and now can order them around too. And are already being tested in some areas with facial-recionition systems.
Yet, you're perfectly happy to glance over those differences.
Dude, they are *already* experimenting with facial recognition in airports... did you start protesting yet?
Of course not, and WHEN it will be widespread, you won't do a damn thing neither because you'll be used to it by then and rationalise it, and you know it.
I remember when the first radarcamera's were placed for cars there were the same complaints and counterarguments too. You had guys like you saying: "stop being so paranoid, it's just for cars that are speeding, it's not like they watch persons walking on the street."
Then they placed CCD camera's which weren't for cars, but to 'ensure safety' and watching people. Again you had people saying; "but it's for added security, it's because it's necessary and it's mighty effective! It's not like they can actually recognise an individual on it, and it's only in places where crime is rampant!"
And now they are placing them in immer more places, so more and more public places will be covered untill it's covered all, and they add loudspeakers to it, so they can order people around without having to show a human face, and they are even taking their first steps at face-recognition, and you go like: "You are being irrational, that's not going to happen at all; don't overreact! It's effective in combatting petty crime, and who knows what the future will bring!"
Point is, people like you never learn, and I mean, never. Every time the government takes another step, you claim the stepping-stone theory where privacy degrades more and more and the government becomes big brother is totally bogus, EVEN when that is *exactly* what is happening. Compare today with 40 years ago, and you can not *but* conclude the government is watching their citizens far more then they used to do, largely thanks to new technology and the apathy of most people - like you.
there is NO doubt they are going to expand the camera's, beecause they're already at it, and they already have established the rationale for it (safety and security); it's already accepted there, so why not here? More camera's, loudspeakers, facial-recognition systems, they can ALL be placed with the same arguments as the very first cameras were set.
You think 1984 arives in one sudden stroke, by a totalitarian regime that suddenly makes sweeping privacy invasions? No, my friend, it happens slowly, step by step, little by little... untill at the end, we arrive at exactly the same thing but without the protest, because people have accepted it. It's nothing more then the frog-in-the-pan syndrome; if, hypothetically, you had said, back in the time where speeding-car cameras were place at certain crossroads: "We're going to place camera's on every corner of the street with facial-recognition and loudspeakers", you would have heard an outcry. In ten years, you'll hardly get a shrug.
ok, I know I said I was going to stop with this thread, but, hey, it's a new day (well, for me at least).;-)
"The reason I brought it up is because of your concern over killing innocents, in the US this is frequently used as an argument by the anti-abortion folks, who BTW usually support capital punishment, and vice versa, pro-abortion supporters are typically anti-capital punishment."
I don't think the two are *inherently* linked to eachother.
The first kind of folks could use an utilitarian argument, like you did in regard to capital punishment, and claim the killing of some innocents isn't all that bad if one can kill more bad guys. For it to be illogical in that viewpoint, you would have to demonstrate that killing unborn children (the innocents) isn't all that bad if you can kill more of...what/whome?
See? While the premise might be wrong, once you *start* with the utilitarian premise, it *could* be valid for anti-capital thoughts, yet remain equally valid for anti-abortion. They still would fail to demonstrate that their decision to regard prisoners as non-humans is utterly arbitrary and not based on reality however, but maybe they did find a compelling argument, who knows? Point is, the two things don't *have* to be inherently linked.
The second kind of folks don't need to be contradictory per se neither; if you start with the premise a foetus isn't a human being until it is born, then you can be pro-abortion (because it's not a human being yet) and anti-capital (because prisoners are).
Ofcourse, that would depend on the validity of the claim when someone is human or not, and just as you did with claiming prisoners aren't human, both kinds of folks have a rather unsubstantiated assertion of when this is the case, and when not. And equally as you did, most of the time it is solely based on their own opinions, not by more objective criteria which have some truth in reality, and while remaining consistent within their own reasoning.
For instance, on what is the claim based, that babies only become human at birth, and not before? There isn't really any meaningful mental or physical difference before or after birth, with the child. (Which isn't the case with before or after conception). Thus, to remain logical, one would have to search for another criterium that makes more sense. One of which could be, that a human only becomes human when he becomes selfconsient, or when he becomes able to communicate with words, or such - a valid proposition, because the use of language is a clear distinction between us and animals. But, as said, such a reasoning would mean, that children could in principle be allowed to be killed up to a year or two. This misses any substantiation in reality and can't be observed to be happening anyware. (Mind you, there have been cultures that killed part of their own children, but not for those reasons - in fact, it had mostly to do with religion and superstition, and not with reason at all).
I do not doubt that both groups often fail when you really examine their arguments, but I wouldn't dare to say a priori that both simultanious-pro-vs.-con-arguments inherently contradict eachother.
"Both are equally logical, but when related to observable reality, there is no society which allows children up to a year or two to be exterminated. So reality together with my humanistic view and empathy makes me chose the latter."
"I haven't seen any real evidence from you either, "
Well, I have the distinct impression you shun it with saying it's all sponsored by anti-capital pushing lobying groups.
"not that it would change my mind."
That says it all, really. You basically acknowledge you wouldn't change your position even if you were proven wrong in all your argumentation. This is not the attitude for having a meaningful debate, and it is certainly unreasonable... as another poster with similar ideas as you said: "Those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. They only understand violence and brute force, and so must be dealt with in those terms."
Yes, I know, it's ironic.
"Which, speaking of innocents, what was your stance on abortion?"
I didn't comment on it, because I'm getting tired of this thread. As you clearly indicated, you're not really interested in an openminded debate, your mind is set in front.
I don't follow your reasoning why the one should be coppled to the other, but personally, I'm against it. I'm not against it because of what is said in the Bible or on any religious grounds (I'm actually an atheist), but with logic I can only come to two conclusions: or one should dissallow abortion, or one should allow it even after birth. Both are equally logical, but when related to observable reality, there is no society which allows children up to a year or two to be exterminated. So reality together with my humanistic view and empathy makes me chose the latter.
However, as said, this thread has reached its end as far as I'm concerned, and I will not debate in it any longer. If you want to discuss abortion, you'll have to wait for another oportunity; a FA on/. and a relevant other thread, to discuss it with me.
"I am not empathetic toward the dregs of society."
The fact that you consider humans to be dreg with such ease, and that you shrug of (even innocent) lives so easily, is exactly why I said you severly lack empathy.
"my dreams will go unfulfilled."
I'm relieved they won't be fulfilled, because they would be closer to a nightmare. I fear the day people will base their judgement of the worth of a human being on their personal opinion of who is dreg and who isn't, again.
Anyway, as said, you'll have to wait for another oportunity if you want to have the debate about abortion. Right now I don't feel like it, and this thread has been going on long enough; this is my last post in it.
"You assume that I agree that everyone in prison should be there, I don't."
Do you mean that you think people who commit lesser crimes (e.g. for stealing something) shouldn't be in prison?
Seeing your former line of reasoning, this would sound an implausable deviation of your anti-humane stance thusfar.
"Secondly I do agree that beggers, bums, and welfare leeches should be gotten rid of."
Yes, right...why does that not surprise me? And you do realise that no civilised country follows you in that notion, if it's the kind of 'permanent getting rid of' were talking about.
"Sorry I forgot to address this earlier. Every study I have seen on this has been sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups"
Aha, I see. It's a conspiracy, and all their researchpapers are bullocks. A compelling argument!
"Logically it makes no sense, because any person convicted of any crime, provided they feel they are innocent, is going to appeal. Even if you consider capital punishment appeals to cost more, the difference in cost isn't going to make up for the money spent housing, feeding, and guarding that person for the rest of their natural life."
I actually agree with most of that; it does seem illogical. One possible explanation could be the way the appeal and the proceedings work; for instance, the average time the prisoner in deathrow spends is 15-20 years. Since that is about the jailtime for a murderer, it could well be that the price for the death penalty is equal or higher. Now you can say again: speed it up! But the fact is it currently DOES take as long, and thus the reasoning for it isn't actually there.
Besides, even then the state could as well order them to life-long forced labour, and then it would certainly cost less.
Bottom line is, while one can speculate all we want, it is currently unfounded that the death-penalty would cost less then life imprisonment. All indications thusfar - speculations and personal opinions aside - show the oposite (even if you call it biased). Untill the claim is actually demonstrated to be true, it remains unsubstantiated. And if it remains unsubstantiated, one can not argue it makes a valid argument.
"Yes I do believe that the vast majority of them are unredeemable, there are always exceptions, but these are anomalies and statistically unimportant."
Look, I *KNOW*: I'm well aware that *your opinion* is that no murderers deserve to live anymore, that beggers should be rid of, that you believe that those prisoners are unredeemable... but you did not *once* back any of this up! Your opinions are nowhere susbstantiated! There is no example of a country where the 'murderers should all die' is actually followed, nor where beggers get a similar solution, there is no proof that capital punishement is actually cheaper than imprisonment, there is no shred of evidence to claim they are unredeemable (and all indications are that they in fact are, for the most part), etc.
What I'm getting at is; while you make several claims and arguments, they are *all* unsubstantiated and lack *any* real evidence that they are true. Your whole reasoning is based on confabulation and personal opinion, without a shred of evidence.
Which is fine, as long as it remains just that, but you seem to imply that your ideas and opinions about it are actual true (the only time you didn't, was with the failing of the courts).
We can not debate this any further, if you take your opinions as facts, without substantiating them, nor if you are going to counter every fact I give with "it's sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups".
I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not entitled to speculate whether you are psychopathic to some degree or not, but......do you realise how abnormal and inhumane this al sounds? I mean, I know many USA-dudes (not that you don't have others) have egocentric tendencies where they see humans as tools, or reduce their value in terms of profit or costs.... but you really beat everyone that I enco
"I don't feel that person has any rights, if they commit a capital crime they forfeit their rights, including their right to life itself."
You may feel whatever you like, your feelings and personal opinion in this matter do not constitute what the state (e.g. the USA) shows it does or thinks, nor what reality shows is the case, and thus it can not serve as an explanation for why the USA uses the death penalty . As I said here ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229295 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=1860221 1#18603165 ) , if your argumentation just boils down to "It is the best solution because I think it's the best solution, period" then we could as well stop with this debate.
For it to be meaningful, one has to look to the actual reality of how a state, like the USA, uses the death penalty. Reasons and arguments given, which show inconsistencies and internal contradictions should be declared void. It should also be prone to reality; for instance, your arguments are not applicable by the USA government, because all of those arguments could be said about other prisoners as well, yet the state does not put them on deathrole, which implies they do not share your vision.
"Exactly! IMO, the death penalty isn't used enough."
The logical consequences of that, would be that even prisoners which commited lesser crimes (but still consume resources) would have to be killed too. In fact, there is no reason to stop with prisoners; since you agree that consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty; bums and beggers, and other 'parasites' of society who live of wellfare and thus consume resources from the state, should get the death penalty too instead of being thrown in jail for a day to sleep off their boozesleep.
"Never said the "process" shouldn't be sped up. There is no reason appeals have to take years?"
In criminal cases the legal proceedings always take a long time, because of expertises, counterexpertises, witnesses, etc. While it may be possible to speed it up, I don't think it's possible to speed it up drastically reducing the quality of the trial. Point in matter is, it's far from proven that it costs less then imprisonment, especially if one would consider other alternatives, like condemning the perpetrators to forced labor, instead of the death penalty.
But anyway, you seemed to have glanced over the fact that this was an afterthought; I had debunked the question as being factually wrong (prisoners CAN give value back to society). It seems you are not denying this, so the your argument becomes moot.
"I think it's great that European's think they have found a way to redeem the unredeemable"
You are assuming people who commited capital crimes are inherently unredeemable. As said before, this is demonstratedly incorrect. Since it is incorrect, your reasoning based on this argument has no validity neither.
"Capital punishment is just that a punishment for a "capital" crime, carried out by the "state"."
In essence you say the state is more morally right then an individual, even if the reasons for executing a person is the same. However, it is hypocrital and contradictory to claim somebody else can not do what you do yourself. You save this by claiming the difference lies in the fact of being a state or not. Very well.
If you would argue that a state does have the right, it would mean it has to allow the killing of someone (who commited a capital offense), if it was ordered by a state. Thus, a killing of an US citizen (who commited murder) by another state, say Brittain (secret services have been known to do so) would be allowed?
In reality, this is not the case. Therefor, the claim that it is allowed because it is ordained by a *state* and not an individual, can not be maintained. The USA could claim any state has only the right to punish its own citizens, but that would be contradictory to the fact they themselves kill other citizens in other states.
Logically, if they show that they don't accept their own reasoning (that a state has the right to kill), it follows the rationale given is incorrect.
"So your argument for locking a person away, in total isolation, for the rest of their natural life, (40+ years), consuming resources, and providing absolutely no value back to society, is logical? No thanks, get rid of them. Your arguments are not driven by logic, you are against the death penalty because in your mind the "killing of just one innocent is unacceptable", that is an emotional argument."
Is it? Mind you, I *am* against it, so maybe you are right. I would think I'm against it based on reason, but you claim this is not true.
Well, let's see.
Is it logical, to lock a person away, in total isolation, for the rest of their natural life, (40+ years)?
That was never my claim in the first place. In most cases it's enough to lock a person away for some time, and not in total isolation. It *is* logically however, to do so if the perpetrator continues to pose a direct threat to society.
Is it logical, to let those who commit capital offenses continue to consume resources?
It is, if one is of the opinion that people which the state has taken away their freedom, have the right to consume resources. The argument about economic costs, after all, remains the same whether it deals with capital punishment or not. If consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty, then all people put in prison who continue to consume resources should be killed.
Since that is not the case, it is clear the resources can not be the reason for why people should be given the death-sentence.
Besides that, it also takes as assumption that the death penality is neccesarily consuming less costs than a life-sentence. However, studies have shown that it actually costs more to condemn a man because of the length of time to execution and the inevitable appeals.
Is it logically, if they are providing absolutely no value back to society?
Tis assumes that a prisoner, at least when he commited a capital offense, can absolutely in no way provide any value back during his life. This is demonstratedly untrue. For instance, in the Scandinavian countries, they have an extremely leniant system, where people who commited even capital crimes are given a the chance to learn a trade, and are are constantly under guidance to be reintegrated in society. While this is sometimes abused by a prisoner to escape, or even commit other crimes, in most cases, this has resulted in a very low lack of recidivism, and the majority of those prisoners became productive members of society.
This shows, at least, that it is possible for them to bring value back to society, this the premise on which this question is basd is false.
As you can see, your assertion that I fail in making logical sense would only be true if the 'facts' you base yourself to show why they are illogical, would be true. Since they are not (as showed above), your claim has no basis.
That much was clear. And as said, it's the less humane system.
It boils down to you being perfectly prepared to risk the lives of innocent people for the theorethical perceived benefits of a 'better cleansed' society, which isn't substantiated at all (but which you do not care about).
Your example of traffic accidents is completely irrelevant; those are *accidents*, not willful and conscious actions by the state to kill its citizens.
Look, I'm well aware that *your opinion* is that no murderers deserve to live anymore. I'm just saying that opinion and the arguments you give can't logically be used by the USA or any other current state that has the death penalty because of the contradictions they show, such as when they would use the argument that it is ok 'to get rid of murderers because they are undesirable elements' and yet they prosecute people who kill murderers, etc. (see the whole 'about barbarism' thread).
Of course, if you, apart from humane behaviour towards murderers, also do not care about consistency when using argumentation and reasonings, we better stop this debate. Then it amounts to: "This is my opinion, period". I mean, fine, as I said in the very beginning of this thread: "You, however, can be of the opinion that the government sponsored killings of humans is an act of civilisation. Feel free to do so."
You could have saved us this discussion if you had simply said "I do."
Ah, I see you responded to him. Seen his score and the content of his post, I thought he was trolling so I ignored it.
The fact of the matter is, he based his claim on the single criterium of his own opinion, which, alas, has no basis in reality, and thus is totally unsubstantiated.
"But this doesn't apply to the death penalty, because murderers are not human." he claims.
This assertion is portrayed as a fact, but, again, is nowhere susbtantiated. It is his personal opinion that forms the sole basis for that claim, not something that can be observed in reality. When we *do* look at the observable reality, we see society clearly sees murderers as still being human. While countries which have the weakest respect for human rights in general also show the weakest sense of treating prisoners humane, I don't think there is one country in the world, which officially considers murderers 'beasts'.
Thus, his whole premise is merely a confabulation of his own, which is not reflected in reality, and thus has little to no worth.
But, you know, *even* if one follows his reasoning, it's still rife of contradictions.
For instance, he says: "Part of being human is an embrace of man's capability for rational thought."
If *part* of being human is his rationale, then the other part is his capability for irrational thought. Strangely enough, he then proceeds to argument that the latter is not a part of being human anymore. The truth is, however, that, as a philosopher once said, 'humans are half angels, half devils'; meaning, it is in the nature of man to to good as well as evil.
While we, as a society (and also largely as an indivual), do not accept unrestricted aggressive and irrational behaviour, that behaviour is as much part of being human than that of rational actions. If one thinks humans are only about reason, one is missing an important aspect of the human condition.
As even the parent poster himself indicates that the ratio is only a part of a human being, his former conclusion that people who murder (which in his opinion isn't a rational thing) are no humans anymore, is false.
This is the first contradiction his own reasoning shows.
Another one is his implied presumption that murder can't be rational. Nothing is further from the truth. If one starts with another premise, one can be fully rational and have a logically consistent reasoning while killing another human being. For instance, if I use the premise that I'm entitled to kill a person, because I'm stronger than that person, than I'm fully consistent and rational when I kill that person as long as I'm the stronger one.
The mistake the parent poster makes is, that he thinks murder or violent agression can't be rational...while that depends wholy on the premise. For instance, looking it in a darwinistic sense, if your premise is getting more offspring, it would be rational to impregnate (read: rape) as many women as possible, if you can get away with it (like when you're a dictator). Rationality alone doesn't prevent murder or violence, what you most need in that regard is empathy.
A third way his reasoning fails, is because of the oversimplified view on humans, and the black&white stance he takes in it.
Take, for example, a possible situation (which actually happend in my country), where a shop-owner has been robbed 6 times already. Due to this, he has it increasingly difficult to be able to keep his shop profitable, which is his livelyhood, after all. At a cetain moment the alarm goes of again, and he sees the robbers flee away with all his belongings AGAIN. In a momentary fit of rage, he takes a gun and shoots one of the fleeing thieves. He is condemned by the courts as murderer, since it was no selfdefence (his life was not in danger, and they were fleeing away from him), and he shot them with the intent of killing them.
Now, accoding to the parent's reasoning, that shopkeeper is now nothing more than a beast, and is devoid of any rational thoughts, and doesn't des
Or do you actually think my point is that I don't like ties, rather than that I don't like a clear contradiction in a movie which could have well ommited that contradiction but didn't because they were to lazy to think about the rationale for it?
"And that's why you are denying the possibility that there might exist some cultural equivalent of the tie in another culture."
As anything, there is always an infinite possibility of everything, even that some aliens on other planets speak english. As you yourself point out, however, that notion would be absurd and is purely meant for the viewers to understand. Equally unlikely is that such a culture would come to a non-functional piece of clothing that is *exactly* as our contempary one.
Thus, once again, your conclusion is false; in fact, since it's in the human nature to ornament themselves, and have symbols, I think it's not beyond a reasonable assumption that a human culture would have some ornament to indicate status. The fact that that would be exactly the same thing as our tie is as likely as the chance that a culture, independend of ours for thousands of years, would have created a language of their own, which is exactly the same as english. It just amounts to an absurd amount of readiness to set aside any critical thinking about it. In the case of english, it's merely done because it is paramount for understanding the show, the tie is not paramount, and is just because the creators of the show didn't give one thought about how that contradicts their own story.
"Creating something different for no reason other than just to be different is pointless."
Aha...and there we come to the crux of the matter. As I said; it's intellectual laziness, and you just explained why. They would rather introduce a contradiction than to do the trouble of creating something that would make more sense to the story they themselves are offering to the viewer. Thus, if they would have done that trouble, it would not have been 'just to be different', but to be more coherent and consistent in regard to their own story. As you indicated, they took the easy way out, to the detriment of consistency.
I don't mind debating stuff - even when totally disagreeing, as long as it's done in a calm and rational way.
But I've noted I do get pissed sometimes, if people react like asholes. Sometimes I'll respond in the same manner, then, which I actually don't like to do.
"Wearing a tie is like speaking English. It's a convention that makes the story accessible to the audience."
No it isn't.
What's next? If they show the Coca Cola logo and wear a cowboyhat with "Texas" on it, it's for making it accessible to USA rednecks? The story is perfectly accessible to anyone not autistic in nature, whether the guy is wearing a tie or not. The story would not have been accessible if the characters had been talking 'real alien' which no-one could understand.
If you're denying there is a difference, I suggest letting 100 people look at that episode with the guy with his tie CGS'ed away, and 100 people who watch it with all conversation in a totally unknown language. Let's see who found it accesible, and who not. I think we both know the answer to that one.
"If you wanted everything to be completely "authentic" then you would be left watching fourty minutes of completely alien people wearing completely alien clothing speaking in a completely alien language about things which are completely and totally alien to you."
Again, you seem to miss even a rudimentary discerning capability about what would make a show authentic yet understandable, and what is irrelevant to understanding it, but comes down to intellectual laziness which asks of the viewer to accept something which goes against the rationale of the *story itself*.
English does not make sense within the story, indeed, but it's a 'meta-necessity'; its value for understanding and accepting the story, is paramount. A tie does not make any sense, *ESPECIALLY* if you accept the underlying story; that they're humans thousands of lightyears away, and we have developed thousands of years independently.
You are trying to make a case based on anecdotal evidence - well, as far as it's even evidence, that is. If I say I know of a man who stole a bread, who was arrested and then released, and right after his release he steals a car - would that be a compelling case to argue that the system should change so all people who steal bread get lifelong sentences or can be hold indefinitly?
The point is, will you stop such crimes if you DID allow capital punishment? As more then one researchpaper on the subject has already clearly demonstrated, there are NO indications whatsoever that capital punishment reduces crime.
Thus, we are left with two imperfect systems:
1)a system whereby when crimes get commited people are put in prison 2)a system whereby when crimes get commited people are put to death
As there is no less crime in any of the above systems, and the first system prevents innocent people to get killed, it seems to me the first is more humane.
"Which causes even more burden on society (paying for more guards). These people are proven killers, there is no justification for keeping them around"
That would depend on the intrinsic value you place on life, on the notion of empathy you have, and on the moral and ethical importance you give to killing innocent people for the sake of your own personal conviction about 'better cleansing the system'.
"As far as innocents go, there are many groups trying to prove that the US executes innocent people[snip]"
Whether they can 'prove' this or not does not matter (though I do remember some people in deathrow were found innocent due to new DNA evidence); it's bound to happen (and statistically, it's highly probably it already happend). Since people are fallible, and juries and judges are humans, logic dictates that innocents WILL be put to death.
"and morally I have no problem with it even it does, since overall the system gets it right."
See my first paragraph.
"I never stated the system was perfect, killers get off or are given short sentences all time, this is a failing of the courts, not the punishment phase."
This is not a failing of the courts. I think you're beginning to mistake your own wishes and ideas for reality, and are argumenting as if your reasoning is the same reasoning the state uses. The state does not consider people who have spend their days in prison for murder and then get free, as a failing of those courts. On the contrary, it views that as a proper course of action, where the courts did what they had to do, according to the laws that made it possible to do so, and the perpetrator has 'served his time'. If the state would have wanted to kill all who has killed, then they could have made a law to make that mandatory.
Thus, your assertion is only true if one starts with the premise that the courts fail because they don't sentence every killer to the death-penalty... no court (nor the state) starts with that premise, not even in the USA. Obviously, since the courts allow some killers to live (in accordance with the laws the legislature made), that premise is unsubstantiated.
To recapitulate, this means that:
The state does not fail 'to right the wrong' by failing to kill all persons who killed before, because it clearly allows some killers to live, and therefor your argument that "the state failed to 'right the original wrong', since 'a killer was still on the streets'" was unvalid.
As it is unvalid, it is no longer a correct counter-argument in rebuting my claim; "If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court."
Since the above statement has kept its validity, and seen the fact that people who kill others (which have killed other people themselves) ARE dragged before the court and since the state prosecutes such persons - even when they agree those persons *did* kill a former murderer( and not out of self-defence) - and they get sentenced to prison or even death, it proves that the state, contrary to what you implied in one of your first posts, does not accept the reasoning that permanently removing them 'rights a wrong'. And if the state doesn't accept it of others, they shouldn't use it as an excuse for themselves neither.
Mind you, I'm not debating your personal opinions about how a state, which abides by your rules and laws and selfimagined actions, could be without inconsistencies. It might well be, that in your utopian state, everything is very consistent and logical (though inhumane, at least viewed from my perspective). Personal opinions about a concept, where one person can arbitrarily decide what is valid and not, and which provides no common ground in actual reality, do not lend themselves for a meaningful debate.
What I *am* saying is, that the arguments you brought forth are logically inconsistent and contradictory, and can't be used as an excuse or a valid reasoning for the use of the capital punishement *by the USA*. I think, within that context, we can both agree that the claims I made are the logical consequences when using rationale and reason.
Are you saying that if, for instance, florida makes a law which explicitly forbids capital punishment, for whatever reason, but a citizen in florida does something in Florida which allows the federal governement to ask for the deathpenalty, he risks being put to death in florida anyway, regardless of the states' own laws?
If that's the case, obviously, one can't remove the populace even from states where the death sentence has been abolished. Are you sure this is the case, even in India and such?
"You obviously didn't research anything on the Aryan Brotherhood, if you had you would find that this "prison gang" is far from removed from society, and isolated in prison. The brotherhood has ordered hits on people outside of prison, not very removed if they can still "kill" someone from inside prison."
This, again, is contradictory. If they were truely isolated, they wouldn't have been able to contact anyone. If one notes that security isn't strong enough, the most logical thing to do is beef up security.
"Executing innocent people is unfortunate, but RARELY happens, and certainly is no excuse to get rid of a system that cleanses society."
I find that reasoning stupifying. It would sound less hypocritical if you were saying it, while you would be in death row, while being innocent. Executing innocents isn't just 'unfortunate', but is unforgivable, and should be avoided at all costs. If someone finds an innocent life not valuable enough to be saved because of an imaginary better cleansing of society (which is actually a totally unsupported claim; there are no indications whatsoever which show capital punishments have a detrimental efect on crime), then they are barbaric, indeed.
"Depends. If the person who killed the former killer was acting in self-defense, they certainly would not be prosecuted."
Which was why I said: "somebody else who killed before". Obviously, I wasn't talking about self-defence.
"Also if the person who had killed before, had not already been killed then the state failed to right the original wrong, since that person was still on the streets."
Only if you start with the premise that the state fails 'to right the original wrong', by failing to kill all persons who killed before... which no state does, even not the USA. Since the state (and in fact, any state) allows some killers to live, that premise is false. If it's false, then your above reasoning has no grounds, and the original contradiction remains.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree the depiction of it on swordfish was primarily to look cool, that much was obvious when watching the scene. However, the *technology* behind it is not ridiculous.
;-), it is completely feasable to have a system with six 3D screens set up in the way it was in Swordfish. In fact, it's currently more feasable than going to Mars in search of an alien artifact and getting scanned at the local spaceport.
Thus, if a person would want to look cool (to less critical people than pragmatic slashdotters
The author shouldn't compare apples with oranges if he wants to make his point: the *technological* feasability is not the same his opinion about how ridiculous something looks.
The claim that something similar to the system depicted in swordfish is ridiculous, is on itself ridiculous. Multi-monitors are nothing new; even ordinary PC users with a decent graphic-card can already link two. Currently, there are already systems which can handle *more* then 6 screens.
And as far as the 3D goes:
"HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. -- August 9, 2004
Sharp Systems of America, a division of Sharp Electronics Corporation, today introduced the Sharp LL-151-3D display, Sharp's first stand-alone display that features Sharp's 3D LCD Technology. This exciting 15-inch 3D LCD monitor delivers eye-popping 3D images to the naked eye, and can be easily switched between 2D and 3D viewing for standard applications such as spreadsheets, word processing or email. "
Note the date. It's not even Sci-fi anymore.
Hmm...forgot to respond..
:-))
;-)
I liked your post as well. It made an interesting comparison between the SF and our own timeframe/societies in which it was made. while I'm not sure if it's all that clear cut (you have sci-fi movies that just depict a specific idea too, IMHO, without it being a reflection of the actual society in which the author lived; e.g. solient green, THX 1138, GATACA,...).
But you do make a compelling case for popular Sci-fi shows, and I think there is actually a lot of truth in the claim you made. Especially for the Captain Kirk era... ah, I'm actually nostalgic about that. (Not that I'm from that era, but it's probably because I saw the show when it came out in my country as a little kid, about 7-8 years old, wide-eyed and completely captivated. "Oooooh!...An 'energy-field'...in the form of a giant hand! *gasp* *suspense*
I also thought the 'boinking the native females / white chick' was rather funny'.
"To be honest I agree with you regarding a constitution: we have an "unwritten constitution" apparently, which is basically a bad joke, as I'm sure any American would agree."
;-)
I wouldn't know; I'm European
It's true that in a system with elections - as long as they remain in place - it's unlikely that a government will actual terrorise the majority of its population (if it wants to be re-elected, anyway), which could happen in a totalitarian system with a dictator. This, however, does not guarantee anything to the minorities in that country.
Well, it's a difficult subject. Personnaly, I've always thought that an 'enlightened dictatorship' would theorethically be better then a democracy - the problem with that is, that it's impossible to achieve in reality (and if it were, impossible to maintain it 'enlightened'. So I guess we're stuck with democracy as 'least bad' of the governing systems.
"in that CCTV is currently a beneficial technology"
And so is facial recognition technology. I think that's just the point. It being 'beneficial' is wholy dependend on what you consider to be most important; your privacy or your feeling of security.
Common, you seem a rather rational person, after all; you must see that facial recognition can be a 'benefical technology' as well if the premise is, that it brings more security. Whether it actually does or doesn't is a matter of debate, but that's true of the CCTV too; I doubt the social causes of the problems, nor the behaviour itself really dissapears with the instalment of the cameras - it just moves to somewhere or something else.
Surely, a case could be made for facial recognition; say, the secret service gives out a list of faces of terrorists (their favorite excuse): the moment that terrorist shows his face in the city, he's spotted, and can be arersted, or, even better, surveilled. With enough camera's you can see where he is, what he does, where he has been, with whome he talked, etc. In fact, the system is a potential goldmine to increase security; the possibilities of fighting crime are staggering - especially when you make it by law a necessity that every citizen and everyone visiting the country needs to be taken a scan of his face.
"Now, and you were saying? Something about being beneficial? Well, my dear chap, ofcourse it is!" And there walks away the policecommander, satisfied that he explained the benefits of the new system, just like he did with all the former systems.
Your point is, that current CCTV is less intrusive than facial recognition systems, which is true. My point is, facial recognition is potentially more intrusive, but it is potentially far more beneficial in combatting crime too.
So what argument are you going to give to someone who says "that facial recognition is a beneficial technology" in 10 years, and *you* are complaining about it? Since it's about balancing privacy-invasion against it being 'beneficial', *exactly* the same case can be made for facial recognition as you make for CCTV.
In fact, a complete and total (especially secret) surveillance of all citizens, including in their homes, would be defendable on that basis too, because think of the unbelievable benefits it would bring in combatting crime, including domestic violence and even more unsavory crimes that might be going on in the seclusion of private homes!
Fact is, if you're willing to give up privacy for a feeling of security, there can always be made a case it is beneficial, as long as one feels that more security is gained.
"Do you have any non-fictional examples of this kind of creeping totalitarianism?"
Yes, the UK. My point was exactly that the creeping is going on right now. Some other democracies are also on that path, albeit less steeply.
"which I would define as reaching a point where it is difficult to elect a new government to repeal the objectionable laws, if the majority of the populace wanted this to happen."
Aha. I would define it otherwise. I also look at other common elements of totalitarian states, such as the manner in which an individuals' liberty and freedom gets more and more trampled upon, the rule of law gets curbed in the name of security, citizens are under increasing surveillance from the state, etc.
The argument about 'majority' is a two-edged sword; it is necessary for a democracy, true, but, IMHO, not enough on its own (the US has a constitution to keep things a bit more in check). There is something called 'the dictatorship of the majority', after all. And even if the majority doesn't want it, does it actually get things repealed with ease? Did the UK government redraw its soldiers in Iraq, since the majority wanted it?
While a classic dictatorship doesn't allow elections (well, Sadam was supposedly elected too, but..yeah), for me, it's also about whether or not enough other elements of a dictatorship are present to call something totalitarian. At the end, it doesn't matter if an individual has no more freedom and rights than in a totalitarian system because of a dictator, or because of the apathy or even the 'wanting' of the majority of the populace.
"and at that point it doesn't matter if it's a camera, a policeman or a seventy foot tall mechanised horror telling you not to"
With the difference a polican isn't going to wacth you 24/24 on every corner of the street and record everything you're doing.
People seem to forget:
1)police and government have often shown to be corrupt
2)all laws are just
3)a society that would strictly follow every law made would choke to a standstill
As for 1; one could say 'then sue the corrupted officials, but...since cameras are far more anonymous, it's far more difficult to actually get a police-officer or someone from the government sued and convicted if they are corrupt (it already does not have a good trackrecord, in that regard). It would even be impossible to know if someone was out of line; if I see a police-oficer stalking me, and recording evrything I do, I can go to him and confront him, and eventually sue him. Can I do the same with some camera hanging there? No. Furthermore, viewed as a matter of principle, it doesn't do you any good; even if the corrupted get caught, there will be others that take their place; there is no governement that has not known corruption...again...and again...and again. It's just in human nature. This is true with or without cameras and other similar surveillance technology, but since the contact used to be limited, the chances of you being abused by corrupted officials was limited too. Now they have augmented the surveillance while at the same time reduced the risk of being hold responsable for their actions. It ultimately boils down to the question; who will watch the watchers?
As for 2; we all know some laws are just bullocks, made up by some politicians who wanted to prove a point, stroke their ego, were lobbied by corporations, or simply failed to see the consequences. In short, you have bad laws. Now, one could say; then change the law, but in reality, this is far from being that easy, just because of those egos, those making of points, the lobbying...and then you still have something called 'the tyranny of the majority'. As long as there is a reasonable way of escaping those bad laws, that doesn't matter much; people can just readily ignore those bad laws. If you're monitored 24/24, you can't. Yes, that goes for good laws being ignored too, but the difference is, people that brake those don't care about that anyway.
as for 3; a prime example I still remember is that one time, the trainstation was in complete chaos; trains were delayed, had to be diverted, etc. When asked if they were on strike, they told me they weren't, that they simply were executing something that would translate into 'pointly action'. What it meant was, they followed EXACTLY the rules and laws that were made to govern them, with the result everything went beserk. The fact is, almost all things and srvices in a society work, because people make it work. They're 'creative' with the laws (even the good ones), to make sure things get done. You would be surprised of what would happen if everything that were laid down in rules and laws would be followed to the letter; it would lead to disaster.
Now, making sure that everything works by bending (even good) laws is only going to be readily happening when those who do it know they won't get in trouble for it; obviously, if you know every move you make is being recorded and can be used against you, this will have a chilling effect. Ofcourse, criminals won't care about it, since they are already breaking the law.
My point is, even when one claims it could have positive effects, people seem to miss there is a drawback too.
Supporters always ask, what's the difference, whether it are camera's or cops... but would you *really* want a cop on every streetcorner (which is only the case in totalitarian states, btw) who follow your every move, 24/24 and 7/7, and record everything you do? Are you that scared of your own society? In any case, it would freak *me* out, and if that were the reality, many others too, I presume. Yet, when the same happens with cameras, some people start defending it.
"Unfortunatly, there has grown up a culture of yobbish behaviour amoung a small but significant minority of manily young people who, for whatever reason, feel the need to express their anti-social anti-establisment feelings at every opportunity."
Yes, and cameras will solve the cause of that behaviour and root it out. It's quite obvious: the more cameras we place, the more problems of society go away.
Lol...I just read this, and you ARE using the 'the slippery slope isn't true' defence! You're doing just as I said in my other post to you.
Of course there is a difference, and it won't happen tommorow, that's for sure. But there's a huge difference between the first camera's who were placed on a handful of crossroads to watch the numberplates of speeding cars, and the multitude of cameras today that watch people 24/24... and now can order them around too. And are already being tested in some areas with facial-recionition systems.
Yet, you're perfectly happy to glance over those differences.
Dude, they are *already* experimenting with facial recognition in airports... did you start protesting yet?
Of course not, and WHEN it will be widespread, you won't do a damn thing neither because you'll be used to it by then and rationalise it, and you know it.
I remember when the first radarcamera's were placed for cars there were the same complaints and counterarguments too. You had guys like you saying: "stop being so paranoid, it's just for cars that are speeding, it's not like they watch persons walking on the street."
Then they placed CCD camera's which weren't for cars, but to 'ensure safety' and watching people. Again you had people saying; "but it's for added security, it's because it's necessary and it's mighty effective! It's not like they can actually recognise an individual on it, and it's only in places where crime is rampant!"
And now they are placing them in immer more places, so more and more public places will be covered untill it's covered all, and they add loudspeakers to it, so they can order people around without having to show a human face, and they are even taking their first steps at face-recognition, and you go like: "You are being irrational, that's not going to happen at all; don't overreact! It's effective in combatting petty crime, and who knows what the future will bring!"
Point is, people like you never learn, and I mean, never. Every time the government takes another step, you claim the stepping-stone theory where privacy degrades more and more and the government becomes big brother is totally bogus, EVEN when that is *exactly* what is happening. Compare today with 40 years ago, and you can not *but* conclude the government is watching their citizens far more then they used to do, largely thanks to new technology and the apathy of most people - like you.
there is NO doubt they are going to expand the camera's, beecause they're already at it, and they already have established the rationale for it (safety and security); it's already accepted there, so why not here? More camera's, loudspeakers, facial-recognition systems, they can ALL be placed with the same arguments as the very first cameras were set.
You think 1984 arives in one sudden stroke, by a totalitarian regime that suddenly makes sweeping privacy invasions? No, my friend, it happens slowly, step by step, little by little... untill at the end, we arrive at exactly the same thing but without the protest, because people have accepted it. It's nothing more then the frog-in-the-pan syndrome; if, hypothetically, you had said, back in the time where speeding-car cameras were place at certain crossroads: "We're going to place camera's on every corner of the street with facial-recognition and loudspeakers", you would have heard an outcry. In ten years, you'll hardly get a shrug.
That's the mentality that you express.
ok, I know I said I was going to stop with this thread, but, hey, it's a new day (well, for me at least). ;-)
"The reason I brought it up is because of your concern over killing innocents, in the US this is frequently used as an argument by the anti-abortion folks, who BTW usually support capital punishment, and vice versa, pro-abortion supporters are typically anti-capital punishment."
I don't think the two are *inherently* linked to eachother.
The first kind of folks could use an utilitarian argument, like you did in regard to capital punishment, and claim the killing of some innocents isn't all that bad if one can kill more bad guys. For it to be illogical in that viewpoint, you would have to demonstrate that killing unborn children (the innocents) isn't all that bad if you can kill more of...what/whome?
See? While the premise might be wrong, once you *start* with the utilitarian premise, it *could* be valid for anti-capital thoughts, yet remain equally valid for anti-abortion. They still would fail to demonstrate that their decision to regard prisoners as non-humans is utterly arbitrary and not based on reality however, but maybe they did find a compelling argument, who knows? Point is, the two things don't *have* to be inherently linked.
The second kind of folks don't need to be contradictory per se neither; if you start with the premise a foetus isn't a human being until it is born, then you can be pro-abortion (because it's not a human being yet) and anti-capital (because prisoners are).
Ofcourse, that would depend on the validity of the claim when someone is human or not, and just as you did with claiming prisoners aren't human, both kinds of folks have a rather unsubstantiated assertion of when this is the case, and when not. And equally as you did, most of the time it is solely based on their own opinions, not by more objective criteria which have some truth in reality, and while remaining consistent within their own reasoning.
For instance, on what is the claim based, that babies only become human at birth, and not before? There isn't really any meaningful mental or physical difference before or after birth, with the child. (Which isn't the case with before or after conception). Thus, to remain logical, one would have to search for another criterium that makes more sense. One of which could be, that a human only becomes human when he becomes selfconsient, or when he becomes able to communicate with words, or such - a valid proposition, because the use of language is a clear distinction between us and animals. But, as said, such a reasoning would mean, that children could in principle be allowed to be killed up to a year or two. This misses any substantiation in reality and can't be observed to be happening anyware. (Mind you, there have been cultures that killed part of their own children, but not for those reasons - in fact, it had mostly to do with religion and superstition, and not with reason at all).
I do not doubt that both groups often fail when you really examine their arguments, but I wouldn't dare to say a priori that both simultanious-pro-vs.-con-arguments inherently contradict eachother.
"Both are equally logical, but when related to observable reality, there is no society which allows children up to a year or two to be exterminated. So reality together with my humanistic view and empathy makes me chose the latter."
I meant the former, obviously.
Shows that I'm geting tired.
"I haven't seen any real evidence from you either, "
/. and a relevant other thread, to discuss it with me.
Well, I have the distinct impression you shun it with saying it's all sponsored by anti-capital pushing lobying groups.
"not that it would change my mind."
That says it all, really. You basically acknowledge you wouldn't change your position even if you were proven wrong in all your argumentation. This is not the attitude for having a meaningful debate, and it is certainly unreasonable... as another poster with similar ideas as you said: "Those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. They only understand violence and brute force, and so must be dealt with in those terms."
Yes, I know, it's ironic.
"Which, speaking of innocents, what was your stance on abortion?"
I didn't comment on it, because I'm getting tired of this thread. As you clearly indicated, you're not really interested in an openminded debate, your mind is set in front.
I don't follow your reasoning why the one should be coppled to the other, but personally, I'm against it. I'm not against it because of what is said in the Bible or on any religious grounds (I'm actually an atheist), but with logic I can only come to two conclusions: or one should dissallow abortion, or one should allow it even after birth. Both are equally logical, but when related to observable reality, there is no society which allows children up to a year or two to be exterminated. So reality together with my humanistic view and empathy makes me chose the latter.
However, as said, this thread has reached its end as far as I'm concerned, and I will not debate in it any longer. If you want to discuss abortion, you'll have to wait for another oportunity; a FA on
"I am not empathetic toward the dregs of society."
The fact that you consider humans to be dreg with such ease, and that you shrug of (even innocent) lives so easily, is exactly why I said you severly lack empathy.
"my dreams will go unfulfilled."
I'm relieved they won't be fulfilled, because they would be closer to a nightmare. I fear the day people will base their judgement of the worth of a human being on their personal opinion of who is dreg and who isn't, again.
Anyway, as said, you'll have to wait for another oportunity if you want to have the debate about abortion. Right now I don't feel like it, and this thread has been going on long enough; this is my last post in it.
"You assume that I agree that everyone in prison should be there, I don't."
...do you realise how abnormal and inhumane this al sounds? I mean, I know many USA-dudes (not that you don't have others) have egocentric tendencies where they see humans as tools, or reduce their value in terms of profit or costs.... but you really beat everyone that I enco
Do you mean that you think people who commit lesser crimes (e.g. for stealing something) shouldn't be in prison?
Seeing your former line of reasoning, this would sound an implausable deviation of your anti-humane stance thusfar.
"Secondly I do agree that beggers, bums, and welfare leeches should be gotten rid of."
Yes, right...why does that not surprise me? And you do realise that no civilised country follows you in that notion, if it's the kind of 'permanent getting rid of' were talking about.
"Sorry I forgot to address this earlier. Every study I have seen on this has been sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups"
Aha, I see. It's a conspiracy, and all their researchpapers are bullocks. A compelling argument!
"Logically it makes no sense, because any person convicted of any crime, provided they feel they are innocent, is going to appeal. Even if you consider capital punishment appeals to cost more, the difference in cost isn't going to make up for the money spent housing, feeding, and guarding that person for the rest of their natural life."
I actually agree with most of that; it does seem illogical. One possible explanation could be the way the appeal and the proceedings work; for instance, the average time the prisoner in deathrow spends is 15-20 years. Since that is about the jailtime for a murderer, it could well be that the price for the death penalty is equal or higher. Now you can say again: speed it up! But the fact is it currently DOES take as long, and thus the reasoning for it isn't actually there.
Besides, even then the state could as well order them to life-long forced labour, and then it would certainly cost less.
Bottom line is, while one can speculate all we want, it is currently unfounded that the death-penalty would cost less then life imprisonment. All indications thusfar - speculations and personal opinions aside - show the oposite (even if you call it biased). Untill the claim is actually demonstrated to be true, it remains unsubstantiated. And if it remains unsubstantiated, one can not argue it makes a valid argument.
"Yes I do believe that the vast majority of them are unredeemable, there are always exceptions, but these are anomalies and statistically unimportant."
Look, I *KNOW*: I'm well aware that *your opinion* is that no murderers deserve to live anymore, that beggers should be rid of, that you believe that those prisoners are unredeemable... but you did not *once* back any of this up! Your opinions are nowhere susbstantiated! There is no example of a country where the 'murderers should all die' is actually followed, nor where beggers get a similar solution, there is no proof that capital punishement is actually cheaper than imprisonment, there is no shred of evidence to claim they are unredeemable (and all indications are that they in fact are, for the most part), etc.
What I'm getting at is; while you make several claims and arguments, they are *all* unsubstantiated and lack *any* real evidence that they are true. Your whole reasoning is based on confabulation and personal opinion, without a shred of evidence.
Which is fine, as long as it remains just that, but you seem to imply that your ideas and opinions about it are actual true (the only time you didn't, was with the failing of the courts).
We can not debate this any further, if you take your opinions as facts, without substantiating them, nor if you are going to counter every fact I give with "it's sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups".
I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not entitled to speculate whether you are psychopathic to some degree or not, but...
"I don't feel that person has any rights, if they commit a capital crime they forfeit their rights, including their right to life itself."
5 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=1860221 1#18603165 ) , if your argumentation just boils down to "It is the best solution because I think it's the best solution, period" then we could as well stop with this debate.
You may feel whatever you like, your feelings and personal opinion in this matter do not constitute what the state (e.g. the USA) shows it does or thinks, nor what reality shows is the case, and thus it can not serve as an explanation for why the USA uses the death penalty . As I said here ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22929
For it to be meaningful, one has to look to the actual reality of how a state, like the USA, uses the death penalty. Reasons and arguments given, which show inconsistencies and internal contradictions should be declared void. It should also be prone to reality; for instance, your arguments are not applicable by the USA government, because all of those arguments could be said about other prisoners as well, yet the state does not put them on deathrole, which implies they do not share your vision.
"Exactly! IMO, the death penalty isn't used enough."
The logical consequences of that, would be that even prisoners which commited lesser crimes (but still consume resources) would have to be killed too. In fact, there is no reason to stop with prisoners; since you agree that consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty; bums and beggers, and other 'parasites' of society who live of wellfare and thus consume resources from the state, should get the death penalty too instead of being thrown in jail for a day to sleep off their boozesleep.
"Never said the "process" shouldn't be sped up. There is no reason appeals have to take years?"
In criminal cases the legal proceedings always take a long time, because of expertises, counterexpertises, witnesses, etc. While it may be possible to speed it up, I don't think it's possible to speed it up drastically reducing the quality of the trial. Point in matter is, it's far from proven that it costs less then imprisonment, especially if one would consider other alternatives, like condemning the perpetrators to forced labor, instead of the death penalty.
But anyway, you seemed to have glanced over the fact that this was an afterthought; I had debunked the question as being factually wrong (prisoners CAN give value back to society). It seems you are not denying this, so the your argument becomes moot.
"I think it's great that European's think they have found a way to redeem the unredeemable"
You are assuming people who commited capital crimes are inherently unredeemable. As said before, this is demonstratedly incorrect. Since it is incorrect, your reasoning based on this argument has no validity neither.
"Capital punishment is just that a punishment for a "capital" crime, carried out by the "state"."
In essence you say the state is more morally right then an individual, even if the reasons for executing a person is the same. However, it is hypocrital and contradictory to claim somebody else can not do what you do yourself. You save this by claiming the difference lies in the fact of being a state or not. Very well.
If you would argue that a state does have the right, it would mean it has to allow the killing of someone (who commited a capital offense), if it was ordered by a state. Thus, a killing of an US citizen (who commited murder) by another state, say Brittain (secret services have been known to do so) would be allowed?
In reality, this is not the case. Therefor, the claim that it is allowed because it is ordained by a *state* and not an individual, can not be maintained. The USA could claim any state has only the right to punish its own citizens, but that would be contradictory to the fact they themselves kill other citizens in other states.
Logically, if they show that they don't accept their own reasoning (that a state has the right to kill), it follows the rationale given is incorrect.
"So your argument for locking a person away, in total isolation, for the rest of their natural life, (40+ years), consuming resources, and providing absolutely no value back to society, is logical? No thanks, get rid of them. Your arguments are not driven by logic, you are against the death penalty because in your mind the "killing of just one innocent is unacceptable", that is an emotional argument."
Is it? Mind you, I *am* against it, so maybe you are right. I would think I'm against it based on reason, but you claim this is not true.
Well, let's see.
Is it logical, to lock a person away, in total isolation, for the rest of their natural life, (40+ years)?
That was never my claim in the first place. In most cases it's enough to lock a person away for some time, and not in total isolation. It *is* logically however, to do so if the perpetrator continues to pose a direct threat to society.
Is it logical, to let those who commit capital offenses continue to consume resources?
It is, if one is of the opinion that people which the state has taken away their freedom, have the right to consume resources. The argument about economic costs, after all, remains the same whether it deals with capital punishment or not. If consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty, then all people put in prison who continue to consume resources should be killed.
Since that is not the case, it is clear the resources can not be the reason for why people should be given the death-sentence.
Besides that, it also takes as assumption that the death penality is neccesarily consuming less costs than a life-sentence. However, studies have shown that it actually costs more to condemn a man because of the length of time to execution and the inevitable appeals.
Is it logically, if they are providing absolutely no value back to society?
Tis assumes that a prisoner, at least when he commited a capital offense, can absolutely in no way provide any value back during his life. This is demonstratedly untrue. For instance, in the Scandinavian countries, they have an extremely leniant system, where people who commited even capital crimes are given a the chance to learn a trade, and are are constantly under guidance to be reintegrated in society. While this is sometimes abused by a prisoner to escape, or even commit other crimes, in most cases, this has resulted in a very low lack of recidivism, and the majority of those prisoners became productive members of society.
This shows, at least, that it is possible for them to bring value back to society, this the premise on which this question is basd is false.
As you can see, your assertion that I fail in making logical sense would only be true if the 'facts' you base yourself to show why they are illogical, would be true. Since they are not (as showed above), your claim has no basis.
"BTW, I choose 2."
That much was clear. And as said, it's the less humane system.
It boils down to you being perfectly prepared to risk the lives of innocent people for the theorethical perceived benefits of a 'better cleansed' society, which isn't substantiated at all (but which you do not care about).
Your example of traffic accidents is completely irrelevant; those are *accidents*, not willful and conscious actions by the state to kill its citizens.
Look, I'm well aware that *your opinion* is that no murderers deserve to live anymore. I'm just saying that opinion and the arguments you give can't logically be used by the USA or any other current state that has the death penalty because of the contradictions they show, such as when they would use the argument that it is ok 'to get rid of murderers because they are undesirable elements' and yet they prosecute people who kill murderers, etc. (see the whole 'about barbarism' thread).
Of course, if you, apart from humane behaviour towards murderers, also do not care about consistency when using argumentation and reasonings, we better stop this debate. Then it amounts to: "This is my opinion, period". I mean, fine, as I said in the very beginning of this thread: "You, however, can be of the opinion that the government sponsored killings of humans is an act of civilisation. Feel free to do so."
You could have saved us this discussion if you had simply said "I do."
Ah, I see you responded to him. Seen his score and the content of his post, I thought he was trolling so I ignored it.
The fact of the matter is, he based his claim on the single criterium of his own opinion, which, alas, has no basis in reality, and thus is totally unsubstantiated.
"But this doesn't apply to the death penalty, because murderers are not human." he claims.
This assertion is portrayed as a fact, but, again, is nowhere susbtantiated. It is his personal opinion that forms the sole basis for that claim, not something that can be observed in reality. When we *do* look at the observable reality, we see society clearly sees murderers as still being human. While countries which have the weakest respect for human rights in general also show the weakest sense of treating prisoners humane, I don't think there is one country in the world, which officially considers murderers 'beasts'.
Thus, his whole premise is merely a confabulation of his own, which is not reflected in reality, and thus has little to no worth.
But, you know, *even* if one follows his reasoning, it's still rife of contradictions.
For instance, he says: "Part of being human is an embrace of man's capability for rational thought."
If *part* of being human is his rationale, then the other part is his capability for irrational thought. Strangely enough, he then proceeds to argument that the latter is not a part of being human anymore. The truth is, however, that, as a philosopher once said, 'humans are half angels, half devils'; meaning, it is in the nature of man to to good as well as evil.
While we, as a society (and also largely as an indivual), do not accept unrestricted aggressive and irrational behaviour, that behaviour is as much part of being human than that of rational actions. If one thinks humans are only about reason, one is missing an important aspect of the human condition.
As even the parent poster himself indicates that the ratio is only a part of a human being, his former conclusion that people who murder (which in his opinion isn't a rational thing) are no humans anymore, is false.
This is the first contradiction his own reasoning shows.
Another one is his implied presumption that murder can't be rational. Nothing is further from the truth. If one starts with another premise, one can be fully rational and have a logically consistent reasoning while killing another human being. For instance, if I use the premise that I'm entitled to kill a person, because I'm stronger than that person, than I'm fully consistent and rational when I kill that person as long as I'm the stronger one.
The mistake the parent poster makes is, that he thinks murder or violent agression can't be rational...while that depends wholy on the premise. For instance, looking it in a darwinistic sense, if your premise is getting more offspring, it would be rational to impregnate (read: rape) as many women as possible, if you can get away with it (like when you're a dictator). Rationality alone doesn't prevent murder or violence, what you most need in that regard is empathy.
A third way his reasoning fails, is because of the oversimplified view on humans, and the black&white stance he takes in it.
Take, for example, a possible situation (which actually happend in my country), where a shop-owner has been robbed 6 times already. Due to this, he has it increasingly difficult to be able to keep his shop profitable, which is his livelyhood, after all. At a cetain moment the alarm goes of again, and he sees the robbers flee away with all his belongings AGAIN. In a momentary fit of rage, he takes a gun and shoots one of the fleeing thieves. He is condemned by the courts as murderer, since it was no selfdefence (his life was not in danger, and they were fleeing away from him), and he shot them with the intent of killing them.
Now, accoding to the parent's reasoning, that shopkeeper is now nothing more than a beast, and is devoid of any rational thoughts, and doesn't des
"So, basicly, you don't like ties."
Basically wrong. Are you 'translating', mayhaps?
Or do you actually think my point is that I don't like ties, rather than that I don't like a clear contradiction in a movie which could have well ommited that contradiction but didn't because they were to lazy to think about the rationale for it?
"And that's why you are denying the possibility that there might exist some cultural equivalent of the tie in another culture."
As anything, there is always an infinite possibility of everything, even that some aliens on other planets speak english. As you yourself point out, however, that notion would be absurd and is purely meant for the viewers to understand. Equally unlikely is that such a culture would come to a non-functional piece of clothing that is *exactly* as our contempary one.
Thus, once again, your conclusion is false; in fact, since it's in the human nature to ornament themselves, and have symbols, I think it's not beyond a reasonable assumption that a human culture would have some ornament to indicate status. The fact that that would be exactly the same thing as our tie is as likely as the chance that a culture, independend of ours for thousands of years, would have created a language of their own, which is exactly the same as english. It just amounts to an absurd amount of readiness to set aside any critical thinking about it. In the case of english, it's merely done because it is paramount for understanding the show, the tie is not paramount, and is just because the creators of the show didn't give one thought about how that contradicts their own story.
"Creating something different for no reason other than just to be different is pointless."
Aha...and there we come to the crux of the matter. As I said; it's intellectual laziness, and you just explained why. They would rather introduce a contradiction than to do the trouble of creating something that would make more sense to the story they themselves are offering to the viewer. Thus, if they would have done that trouble, it would not have been 'just to be different', but to be more coherent and consistent in regard to their own story. As you indicated, they took the easy way out, to the detriment of consistency.
Feel free to mod my original post up, then! ;-p
I don't mind debating stuff - even when totally disagreeing, as long as it's done in a calm and rational way.
But I've noted I do get pissed sometimes, if people react like asholes. Sometimes I'll respond in the same manner, then, which I actually don't like to do.
"Wearing a tie is like speaking English. It's a convention that makes the story accessible to the audience."
No it isn't.
What's next? If they show the Coca Cola logo and wear a cowboyhat with "Texas" on it, it's for making it accessible to USA rednecks? The story is perfectly accessible to anyone not autistic in nature, whether the guy is wearing a tie or not. The story would not have been accessible if the characters had been talking 'real alien' which no-one could understand.
If you're denying there is a difference, I suggest letting 100 people look at that episode with the guy with his tie CGS'ed away, and 100 people who watch it with all conversation in a totally unknown language. Let's see who found it accesible, and who not. I think we both know the answer to that one.
"If you wanted everything to be completely "authentic" then you would be left watching fourty minutes of completely alien people wearing completely alien clothing speaking in a completely alien language about things which are completely and totally alien to you."
Again, you seem to miss even a rudimentary discerning capability about what would make a show authentic yet understandable, and what is irrelevant to understanding it, but comes down to intellectual laziness which asks of the viewer to accept something which goes against the rationale of the *story itself*.
English does not make sense within the story, indeed, but it's a 'meta-necessity'; its value for understanding and accepting the story, is paramount. A tie does not make any sense, *ESPECIALLY* if you accept the underlying story; that they're humans thousands of lightyears away, and we have developed thousands of years independently.
You are trying to make a case based on anecdotal evidence - well, as far as it's even evidence, that is. If I say I know of a man who stole a bread, who was arrested and then released, and right after his release he steals a car - would that be a compelling case to argue that the system should change so all people who steal bread get lifelong sentences or can be hold indefinitly?
The point is, will you stop such crimes if you DID allow capital punishment? As more then one researchpaper on the subject has already clearly demonstrated, there are NO indications whatsoever that capital punishment reduces crime.
Thus, we are left with two imperfect systems:
1)a system whereby when crimes get commited people are put in prison
2)a system whereby when crimes get commited people are put to death
As there is no less crime in any of the above systems, and the first system prevents innocent people to get killed, it seems to me the first is more humane.
"Which causes even more burden on society (paying for more guards). These people are proven killers, there is no justification for keeping them around"
That would depend on the intrinsic value you place on life, on the notion of empathy you have, and on the moral and ethical importance you give to killing innocent people for the sake of your own personal conviction about 'better cleansing the system'.
"As far as innocents go, there are many groups trying to prove that the US executes innocent people[snip]"
Whether they can 'prove' this or not does not matter (though I do remember some people in deathrow were found innocent due to new DNA evidence); it's bound to happen (and statistically, it's highly probably it already happend). Since people are fallible, and juries and judges are humans, logic dictates that innocents WILL be put to death.
"and morally I have no problem with it even it does, since overall the system gets it right."
See my first paragraph.
"I never stated the system was perfect, killers get off or are given short sentences all time, this is a failing of the courts, not the punishment phase."
This is not a failing of the courts. I think you're beginning to mistake your own wishes and ideas for reality, and are argumenting as if your reasoning is the same reasoning the state uses. The state does not consider people who have spend their days in prison for murder and then get free, as a failing of those courts. On the contrary, it views that as a proper course of action, where the courts did what they had to do, according to the laws that made it possible to do so, and the perpetrator has 'served his time'. If the state would have wanted to kill all who has killed, then they could have made a law to make that mandatory.
Thus, your assertion is only true if one starts with the premise that the courts fail because they don't sentence every killer to the death-penalty... no court (nor the state) starts with that premise, not even in the USA. Obviously, since the courts allow some killers to live (in accordance with the laws the legislature made), that premise is unsubstantiated.
To recapitulate, this means that:
The state does not fail 'to right the wrong' by failing to kill all persons who killed before, because it clearly allows some killers to live, and therefor your argument that "the state failed to 'right the original wrong', since 'a killer was still on the streets'" was unvalid.
As it is unvalid, it is no longer a correct counter-argument in rebuting my claim; "If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court."
Since the above statement has kept its validity, and seen the fact that people who kill others (which have killed other people themselves) ARE dragged before the court and since the state prosecutes such persons - even when they agree those persons *did* kill a former murderer( and not out of self-defence) - and they get sentenced to prison or even death, it proves that the state, contrary to what you implied in one of your first posts, does not accept the reasoning that permanently removing them 'rights a wrong'. And if the state doesn't accept it of others, they shouldn't use it as an excuse for themselves neither.
Mind you, I'm not debating your personal opinions about how a state, which abides by your rules and laws and selfimagined actions, could be without inconsistencies. It might well be, that in your utopian state, everything is very consistent and logical (though inhumane, at least viewed from my perspective). Personal opinions about a concept, where one person can arbitrarily decide what is valid and not, and which provides no common ground in actual reality, do not lend themselves for a meaningful debate.
What I *am* saying is, that the arguments you brought forth are logically inconsistent and contradictory, and can't be used as an excuse or a valid reasoning for the use of the capital punishement *by the USA*. I think, within that context, we can both agree that the claims I made are the logical consequences when using rationale and reason.
Ok, let me see if I got this right:
Are you saying that if, for instance, florida makes a law which explicitly forbids capital punishment, for whatever reason, but a citizen in florida does something in Florida which allows the federal governement to ask for the deathpenalty, he risks being put to death in florida anyway, regardless of the states' own laws?
If that's the case, obviously, one can't remove the populace even from states where the death sentence has been abolished. Are you sure this is the case, even in India and such?
"You obviously didn't research anything on the Aryan Brotherhood, if you had you would find that this "prison gang" is far from removed from society, and isolated in prison. The brotherhood has ordered hits on people outside of prison, not very removed if they can still "kill" someone from inside prison."
This, again, is contradictory. If they were truely isolated, they wouldn't have been able to contact anyone. If one notes that security isn't strong enough, the most logical thing to do is beef up security.
"Executing innocent people is unfortunate, but RARELY happens, and certainly is no excuse to get rid of a system that cleanses society."
I find that reasoning stupifying. It would sound less hypocritical if you were saying it, while you would be in death row, while being innocent. Executing innocents isn't just 'unfortunate', but is unforgivable, and should be avoided at all costs. If someone finds an innocent life not valuable enough to be saved because of an imaginary better cleansing of society (which is actually a totally unsupported claim; there are no indications whatsoever which show capital punishments have a detrimental efect on crime), then they are barbaric, indeed.
"Depends. If the person who killed the former killer was acting in self-defense, they certainly would not be prosecuted."
Which was why I said: "somebody else who killed before". Obviously, I wasn't talking about self-defence.
"Also if the person who had killed before, had not already been killed then the state failed to right the original wrong, since that person was still on the streets."
Only if you start with the premise that the state fails 'to right the original wrong', by failing to kill all persons who killed before... which no state does, even not the USA. Since the state (and in fact, any state) allows some killers to live, that premise is false. If it's false, then your above reasoning has no grounds, and the original contradiction remains.