Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #161
What would be the point in rehabilitation for an accident? That doesn't make any sense.
Justice doesn't mean what you think it means.
Cut it with the personal attacks by the way. This happens every time I see you post.
-
-
I guess it would depend on the accident, really. If it was a car accident and someone got killed, I can understand not having to go to prison, but if you were under the influence or something similar, I could understand prison and possibly letting him go after a long time in prison and rehabilitation. That's ONLY because he didn't actually mean to kill anyone.
Justice is what you make of it. If you're going by what society calls it, then yes, justice isn't what I consider justice.
Edited:
Oh, but it's okay for him to capitalize my posts and insinuate that I'm dumb, right? That's the first 'personal attack' I've made in this whole debate. So don't bullshit people and try and make me look bad and yourself good. Also, I really don't consider it a personal attack. He's acting like a hippy.
-
You make yourself look bad enough, I could never do you justice.
Also yay more attacks.
-
Not personal attacks, bro. That's what you were doing. I don't make myself look bad. I just have different beliefs than you and the rest of society. If you want to prevent any more 'personal attacks', just drop it, because it's getting old.
-
deaded38, I have to ask: You're trolling right? I've been watching this thread for a while, and there's just no way that you really made a debate thread only to not debate in it. You state your opinions, say it's your beliefs then defend them without reason. If you get in a corner you say 'just my beliefs bro' and think it gets you off the hook. So please let me sleep at night by knowing that you're not an actual person with these actual beliefs who votes for things and breathes precious oxygen that may otherwise be mine.
-
No, I'm not trolling, and I haven't done that whatsoever. I've defended them to the best of my ability, and so have they. At this point, it's a difference in beliefs. There's not a single right or wrong side here. Nobody has defended their beliefs without reason. Please, do refer me to where I (or anyone else) has done that.
Edit: Also, weren't you the person who also thought everyone deserved unlimited chances at life?
-
i'm hoping it's a troll. i can't live with the thought that someone who constantly expresses beliefs eerily similar to hitler's ("people with this brain defect aren't human --> we should kill off people i consider 'not human'", "kill them or put them in jail, i don't care what happens to them as long as they're not here") could actually think what he's saying is morally right, and constantly attack anyone who thinks otherwise because they contradict his beliefs.
nobody can argue with this guy, i say we're better off not wasting our time anymore. he's not here to debate.
-
Right. Because I clearly said that! No, I said if they KILL someone they don't deserve to live. You're putting words into my mouth. I have what some may consider a 'brain defect', but I don't go around killing people. If a person can cope in society without killing people, I see no problem in letting them live. But once they go around killing people, I don't care what happens to them as long as they're not on the streets.
I've debated just fine. You guys have been putting words into my mouth throughout this whole debate. Not to mention the constant 'LOL UR A TROLL' comments due to my beliefs being different. I'd say if anything it's you people who aren't here to debate.
-
There is no debate here. This is all you know how to say.
Edited:
Why is it best or fair for the families? Can you actually explain that reasonably, seeing how in this scenario the murderer would be completely safe to be around?
-
"And why should rehabilitation be denied in anyone if it can be done?" In other words, why wouldn't anyone who can be rehabilitated 'deserve' rehabilitation. You haven't answered that, you just plainly said 'they don't deserve it' to which anyone can claim 'they do'. Calling others 'twisted' for not agreeing with your opinions isn't an argument.
First, I said previously that the concept of 'deserving' something doesn't make any sense for anyone who stopped being a child. So no, I don't think that anyone is alive here because they 'deserve' to live, in the same way as I don't think a murderer 'deserves' to die. That is just bullshit your parents tell you so you can stop fucking with them and/or become a useful member of society. If going to a rehabilitation-oriented system (even for murderers) will help the greater good, then I don't see any reason why not to go for it. And in fact it does help the greater good.
Second, calling anyone who disagrees with your opinion 'a fucked up hippy' isn't an argument. It's actually a fallacy, you know...(ad hominem)
That is an awesome argument. Here is mine:
See the problem? No fucking argument. Your debating skills suck, sorry.I posted:
Oh, why didn't I notice it! It's so obvious! Everyone who won't get revenge by killing the man who murdered their loved one obviously don't love them enough (EXCEPT IF THEY ARE A FUCKING HIPPY LOL!). That's just ridiculous, that was even worse than my post with capital letters, really. I don't see how your love for someone can be expressed in what you'll do to other people knowing that those actions won't affect your loved one in ANY way possible.
Apart from that, I don't see how a desire for revenge would justify the morality of an action in any situation.
Sorry, but I think there are many, many other things persons have that can make others call them 'human'. I don't see how someone who doesn't want revenge isn't 'human'. This makes no sense whatsoever, and also, isn't a valid argument because it isn't true.
I lol'd. See above? No, you haven't debated 'just fine'. You are terrible at debating. I'm sorry.
-
Jesus... you're a hypocrite.
You haven't done anything but capitalize my posts and you're calling me terrible at debating. You're just as bad as me, face it. You act like everything that you spew out of your mouth is completely true, when, in fact, it's just your shitty beliefs. I've made my case, you've made your case. As Falubil and I debated over this, we came to terms that maybe we should just agree to disagree. Also, I wasn't presenting an argument when I said that. Also, your little article didn't explain how mass murderers being released from prisons after a few years are going to help anyone. It pretty much said what you're saying: "Everybody deserves unlimited chances at life even if they did kill shitloads of people!" I saw no statistics or anything regarding how a murderer being released from prison will do society wonderous things. They're going to go on and live normal lives just like the people they killed. It's not fair, and you know it. Like I said, if you think that's fair, that's your problem (not presenting an argument here, FYI). I called you a fucked up hippy because you are one. You may not be wearing rainbow shirts and headbands, but you have the philosophy that everyone deserves unlimited chances at life no matter what they've done. As far as I'm concerned, the only fair justice is where people don't just get to walk free after killing people.
-
Yes. That's because you are.
Excuse me, but at least some things I said can be verified by actual data. All you keep saying is 'X person deserves/doesn't deserve Y'. That is your only argument. And you know that those thing can't be verified.
I've made my case with references to prison systems, recidivism rates, etc, arguing about a greater good that can be obtained from rehabilitation-oriented systems: to reduce crime (BTW, that can also be verified by recidivism rates that are in the article).
No, I don't think so.I posted:
Look at my above post. Thanks.
Holy shit. Please look at my above post. I say nothing about deserving because I think that concept is simply stupid unless you're a child.
-
I more came to terms with the fact that you're hopeless.
-
Wow. You really think you've been debating flawlessly so far... Regardless, your data makes no sense. A full-blown punishment system would work better than a full-blown rehabilititation system because they're being locked up forever, hence, they can't committ any crimes. It's pretty simple.
1. Jimmy goes to prison for murder.
2. Jimmy can't committ murder again because he's in prison for the rest of his life.
If you release someone like that, there's still a chance he could committ murder. Even if there wasn't, I still wouldn't agree with the fact you're letting a murderer walk free. I've explained why. Not that I agree with locking people up forever - just when someone has committed murder against an innocent person. You just don't get it:
There is NO positive to letting a murderer walk free. There is NOT less crime. The ONLY positive is letting a changed man walk, which still isn't FAIR to the families (and yes, MOST people would have peace of mind knowing that their loved one's killer is in prison for the rest of their life).
Edited:
That's cute. I felt the same way about you.
-
Oh, that's quite a claim. Did you conduct a poll to back that up? Because I can see a lot of people thinking that it would be very pointless to keep a murderer in prison if an infallible cure for pyschopathy existed. Let's just use a recent example. From what I hear James Holmes seems to be a pretty smart guy who studied in neuroscience. I wouldn't want him to be a free man because he just shot up a whole theater of people and rigged up his apartment with explosives, but if I could instantly make him not do that anymore, then there's a pretty good chance he could do some real good for the world. He could cure Alzheimer's or Parkinson's for all we know. All of your claims about there being "no positives" to letting a cured murderer be free are ridiculous. Because murderer's come from all walks of life, it's akin to saying, "Nobody should be free, because there are no positives to people being free!" That's just downright wrong.
-
That is faulty logic, since it doesn't count the effects that prison system has in the rest of society. It only evaluates the effects it has in the criminal. For example, let's take that logic and apply it to death penalty.
1. Jimmy receives death penalty for murder.
2. Jimmy can't committ murder again because he's dead.
Yeah, of course, I get it. The problem is that states with death penalty actually have higher murder dates than states without it, That logic is, therefore, rendered fallible.
Edited:
Yes there is a positive: the man is free. He can see his family/friends, do something for them, do things for society, etc. It seems as if you didn't consider the murderer as a person, for you its just "the bad guy" (and everyone related to them is "the bad guy" also, as you don't seem to care about the murderers' family or closely related people either). Sadly, we can't go thinking about people as "bad guys" and "good guys", it's much more complex than that.
Edited:
And another thing, when we think about letting a murderer free, we're already thinking about letting 'a changed man' free. That the purpose of rehabilitation, duh.
-
A murderer is just a defective person, if you could remove the defect, they'd just be a normal person like you or me (assuming that neither you nor I are murderers).
-
Deaded are people beyond redemption in your eyes?
http://menmedia.co.uk/salfordadverti...rmed_murderer_Philly.com posted:
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-ev...ound-1-1936040
Take the hint.
-
Most of those ratings are from the GMod section, which is mostly full of butthurt individuals. If they disagree with me, they resort to the dumb rating. Also, you don't seem to be understanding the point. I never said murderers are incapable of living normal lives, but why should they get the chance? What kind of good things will they do in society to make up for the people they've killed?Deaded are people beyond redemption in your eyes?
http://menmedia.co.uk/salfordadverti...rmed_murderer_
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-ev...ound-1-1936040
Take the hint.
Oh yeah, and cut it with the personal attacks, man.
-
You need to read better:
I thought the bold might be enough to get your attention. Evidently not.
-
But why do murderers deserve freedom? They can't provide anything useful to society, so why should we reward them with freedom after they killed people?
-
Because, like it or not, murderers are part of society.
-
Did you even read anything I just fucking typed. Good lord you are slow.
Here it is for a third time:
-
REWARD them? freedom is not a privilege, it's a human right.
has it occurred to you that criminals may have loved ones too? you're impacting more than just the murderer in question by holding them in prison when they're no longer harmful to society.
the world isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. everything is situational. everyone is the protagonist in their own perspective (consider the situation we're in right now, where everyone in this thread thinks you're being unethical, absurd, and debating incorrectly, but you still firmly believe that the rest of us are wrong and "twisted" for the arguments we're presenting). there's no "dark side" in real life, people don't do things just for the sake of being "evil". everyone thinks what they're doing is right and has a reason for their actions, whether or not it's one the rest of us can comprehend.
you're constantly making broad statements like "all murderers can't be considered human and we should take away all their rights as a human being" and then going back on what you said and acting like the rest of us are stupid when we call you out on it.
-
That's so incredibly stupid for several reasons. The biggest reason is YOU don't know the circumstances that lead to murders. Some murders are crimes of passion. Others are premeditated and completely malicious. To put them under the same umbrella and say that all murderers are the same is completely ridiculous. And those that fall under the former likely contribute to society, just like anyone else. Hell, even those who premeditate their murders can contribute to society.
-
I don't think I ever actually answered the debate question.
No.
-
So why doesn't Jimmy go on a homocide spree then if he gets the same punishment? Or if he gets the death penalty, it's lighter than being stuck in prison for the rest of life, which would encourage him to do worse than murder.
-
What the fuck does that mean? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Edited:
The only reason one should be allowed to murder is if someone did something to deserve it. And this doesn't mean, "He stole something from me. I'm going to kill him" before you start calling me an idiot. I never said all murderers are the same, but they still killed innocent people. You're still avoiding the question:
What are murderers going to contribute that will make up for the wrong they've done?
-
"make up for"?
what have you done to make up for the 18 or so years your parents raised you and paid your expenses? what have you done to make up for contributing to environmental damage? have you done anything to improve the lives of others that balances out the inconveniences you've caused?
human rights don't rest on some delicate balance of contribution to society.
-
There's a reason they call it temporary insanity. I never said it was okay; my point was those people are the same as us and they had just one vulnerable moment where they made a mistake, a mistake that they'll pay for, for sure, but a mistake nonetheless. They can most definitely make up for it and contribute back to society afterwards though.
-
I fucking answered the question if you knew how to read. I'll post it a fourth time:
What I'm saying is, how the hell do you know that a reformed murderer can't contribute to society? You don't, it's probably your dumbest and weakest claim yet and that's saying something.
-
I never meant a reformed murderer can't contribute to society. But what are they going to contribute that is so amazing? Doing what the rest of society does doesn't make up for what they've done in their past.
-
How do you know they can't do incredible things? That's sonething you can't know, and threfore your entire argument is invalid.
-
Like what? What could a person possibly do to make up for all the families they've torn apart?
-
They could do anything that is possible for any person to do. If they were a medical researcher who murdered someone and were then rehabilitated, then they could cure cancer. You have no way of knowing that they couldn't.
-
Yeah, because the odds of a convicted murder finding the cure for cancer is so likely to the point where we should release them from prison.
-
The error here is thinking that a murderer has to find a cure for cancer to be released. He doesn't; and yes, probably there's nothing he can do to make up for the error he committed, just like anyone. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be released once he doesn't represent a threat to the community.
-
We are speaking in hypotheticals. I would say the odds of a rehabilitated murderer who is a medical researcher finding a cure for cancer would be the same as the odds of a regular medical researcher finding a cure for cancer. I suppose since the odds are so slim that any single person will find a cure for cancer though, that we should just quit cancer research. As long as you acknowledge that there is a chance at all that they could cure cancer for example, then that automatically invalidates the statement:
Please, respond again. Entertain us.
-
deaded ignoring my posts because he doesn't know how to respond?
-
I know that feel.
