SubJeff on 13/11/2009 at 16:14
This is the problem with "discussions" on TTLG these days. The anti-gang spout their hyperbole and then disappear as soon as anything else is said. Its like trying to have a discussion with The Daily Mail.
Aerothorn on 13/11/2009 at 16:55
I should be so lucky - my mail never says anything to me at all!
Mr.Duck on 13/11/2009 at 19:17
Frankly, I have a ball until it gets (more) repetitive.
Oh well...
Hey Ruggums, ever thought about being a NYC stand-up comedian?, as a hobby? :)
Aerothorn on 13/11/2009 at 19:35
According to the Costume Pics thread, he already has.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/11/2009 at 19:49
Quote Posted by Wormrat
My examples of confiscation, incarceration, etc. were not meant to
prove this but show that, unless you put forth an absolutist position, you implicitly agree--pretty much everyone thinks that circumstances are important in evaluating the "wrongness" of an action. When it comes to killing people,
everyone in this thread I was responding to implicitly agrees with me, so unless they want to address those circumstances or explain why I am mistaken, the "lol hypocrisy" claim will not wash.
***
And no, I cannot be faulted for the oversimplification of others, especially when I am trying to show how silly their oversimplification is. I have no idea why you are trying to fault me for not addressing nuances that some people somewhere might highlight in their arguments.
Which is bullshit, and you're not following along. You're playing checkers with logic, and not seeing the chess board. The extremist position is a logical necessity of most pro death penalty arguments. Whether you agree with it or not, it is an underpinning implicit to both the discussion and any pro death penalty argument.
The problem is this: the taking of someone's life is
such an extreme remedy that it needs further justification than does incarceration or state takings - it changes the game. It is not simply a matter of extremity, it is qualitatively different when you justify a remedy because the crime reaches the lower bound of morality. But the problem is, if your justification relies on the fact that killing is so extra abhorrent, there is a logical catch 22 which reinforces that the remedy is that much more abhorrent. It's an immovable object/unstoppable force argument - in order to overcome the wrongness of the punishment, you need to overstate the wrongness of the crime, thus increasing the justification burden which must be overcome because of the attendant wrongness of the remedy. Almost any line of argument in favor of the death penalty relies on the magnitude of the wrongness of the crime and therefore contains a clear logical contradiction, and is thus why the claim that it is hypocritical stands as completely valid.
What is not, in any way shape or form, valid is your response that "but we do other things that are the same as the crime, and this isn't hypocritical." Your statement is simply trivial in the context of this discussion, and of no weight. This is a distraction and a tangent, easily dismissed by the fact that they are the
minimum means necessary to achieve important state goals. That's not just fluff language, it's an important legal concept and your argument clearly demonstrates that you fail to recognize or acknowledge this fundamental limitation of your statement. Being that the death penalty is the most extreme, absolute remedy available to the state, any argument that it is the minimum means necessary is exceedingly difficult to make.
But in order for your "Hurr LOL, we lock people up and that ain't kidnapping" counter to have any validity, it is necessary to show that the death penalty is the minimum means necessary, otherwise it is qualitatively different from incarceration.
However, that argument is a high level constitutional argument, which as I stated earlier, you are simply not equipped to deal with. If you were, you simply wouldn't have said it in the first place in that context.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/11/2009 at 19:59
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
This is the problem with "discussions" on TTLG these days. The anti-gang spout their hyperbole and then disappear as soon as anything else is said. Its like trying to have a discussion with The Daily Mail.
That, quite frankly, is why I'm so dismissive of so many people who simply can't be taken seriously. It is one thing for T13x to ask the question why I can separate the Ft. Hood shooter from the sniper, that's legit, and I'm happy to humor it. But it so quickly devolves into stupid shit ("Hurrr, living in Virginia is the same level of consent as joining the fucking military") that it's too much work to correct the level of stupidity involved. Once someone has said something that retarded, there is really no reclaiming it. I can't think of a better example of why some people deserve abuse.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/11/2009 at 20:39
I don't give a shit what your position is, I'm merely pointing out the trivial and meaningless statement of your argument.
The problem is that the hypocrisy argument in this thread is a simplification of a valid argument, which, when expanded can be logically supported (or, rather, is a proper logical refutation of the assumptions necessary to make pro-death penalty arguments valid). Your counter is only marginally valid with respect to that simplification, but utterly falls down in the face of the full context, precisely because the assumptions necessary for it to hold true are ones that you yourself don't believe.
Yeah, the hypocrisy argument in this thread may be kindergarten level, but it holds up when expanded, yours never gets to the first grade - which is why it never "easily defeats" the hypocrisy argument in the first place.
Not my fault if you're unable to see that.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/11/2009 at 21:43
Is that really what you think?
This starts with a simplistic argument that leaves out some unnecessary steps. You go for a simplistic counter. I point out that when you bring in reality and logic, the simplistic initial argument holds up but your counter falls away.
You reply by saying "But I don't care about REALITY, I'm only responding to what's in this thread, and therefore reality doesn't matter!"
So, at the end of the day, you came in to mock/dismiss argument A, and don't want to acknowledge that I've cut the legs from under such dismissal. ie. you can dish it, but you can't take it when your own argument is trivialized and dismissed logically.
So you've decided not to put on your big boy pants because you want to keep fingerpainting with the kindergartners.
Fine by me. I'll be discussing Picasso with the big kids.
Aerothorn on 13/11/2009 at 21:53
Quote Posted by Wormrat
NOTE: Apparently, RBJ hates it--
hates it--when you go for the low-hanging fruit.
Not to kick a man when he's down, but these sorts of "let's talk about X like they're not here!" statements rarely earn you (and I mean the generic you here) any points. It implies that you are unable or unwilling to engage directly with the other poster(s).
Rug Burn Junky on 13/11/2009 at 22:27
/Nevermind
