Poll: Death Penalty
- Thread starter ThePlasmatizer
- Start date
I don't support the death penalty because I don't think the death penalty as it is used right now works in a way that is morally acceptable. The only circumstance that death should be permissible as a punishment is in the case of premeditated or deliberate murder of another person. Obviously, deliberately causing harm (especially physical) to anyone is a big no-no.
Animals are a bit harder; we need to kill animals for food, but we don't do it in a way that is morally justifiable. Factory farming and reducing the lives of our animals to suffering and insanity is a huge offense. There has to be a better way to do it without causing so much suffering. There's nothing wrong with killing an animal for your meal without a better alternative, but it should be done quickly, cleanly and as painlessly as possible; factory farming presents a solution that is a binary opposite to that. Can you sentence people to death for that, though? I'm not sure, but it's undeniably bad.
Animals are a bit harder; we need to kill animals for food, but we don't do it in a way that is morally justifiable. Factory farming and reducing the lives of our animals to suffering and insanity is a huge offense. There has to be a better way to do it without causing so much suffering. There's nothing wrong with killing an animal for your meal without a better alternative, but it should be done quickly, cleanly and as painlessly as possible; factory farming presents a solution that is a binary opposite to that. Can you sentence people to death for that, though? I'm not sure, but it's undeniably bad.
No. People have been debating whether or not it was morally just for Britain for firebomb Dresden to the ground in the same way they've debated the morality of firebombing Japan and the nukes. Was it Churchill to leave Coventry's defences low after decoding the German encryption? The following air raid claimed thousands of British lives so that the Allies could retain a tactical advantage for D-Day.Dele said:Quite the contrary I find it a lot more just that way. Or might it be a taboo to criticize the sitting president? Is it a taboo to criticize war heroes like Churchill or Eisenhower?rossatdi said:What? You mean as compared to Mao's 20-30 million, Stalin's 15, HItler's 10? I think Bush is probably pretty safe. You know, in comparison to JFK (Vietnam escalation), Truman (Firebombs over Japan, the two nuclear bombs, Korean intervention), Churchill (Dresden firebombing).Dele said:Could this formula be used on "democratic" countries? Would love to see statistics on how many Bush has killed)
Leaders are required to make shit choices as part of their remit. That is not to particularly defend Bush, I think he is an awful President, but over playing it is counter productive.
The point is these people are essentially making hard choices for their own people. I have no doubt that Bush believed Iraq to be a worthy target that would aid peace in the region (democratic peace thesis and all that stuff). Dictators purposefully kill their own countrymen because they disagree with them or, in the case of Mao, are so wilfully ignorant as to cause mass starvation.
I have no doubt that Hitler believed killing jews was aiding people of Germany. I have no doubt that Hitler thought attacking Soviet union would bring peace to Germany. I have no doubt that people have been needlessly killed under a non-dictator.rossatdi said: