Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

You are a man in norway a few days ago with a big rifle. Anders Breivik has just killed a few people and is clearly about to kill more. You can shoot him with your rifle, or do nothing.

That fell under his definition of self-defense too. Everyone recognizes that sometimes lethal force is necessary but he and others against Capital Punishment are coming from the position that the state shouldn't have the power to execute somebody when said person has already been disabled. Immediate need is very different from execution.

[GlyphGryph]

Stopping an immediate threat is not even in the same league as an execution. Stop with the strawmen.

Evidence seems to fall, from what I've seen, in the camp of capital punishment is a factor in societies that believe its alright to kill someone because of something they've done, even when you have other viable options to deal with them (rather than something they are trying to do in a situation where options are quite limited).

Societies with this belief tend to foster individuals with this belief. I am not okay with a society that encourages this sort of belief among the general population for minimal gain, since time and again you get people picking up on what they say as a failure of the government to act.

Life in prison has the wonderful advantage of not being something individuals can easily attempt to emulate, and thus takes away one of the cultural rationalizations that create a culture where it is "okay to kill people if they've done wrong."

You can't see why that sort of belief could cause problems and costs in a society as a whole, and why institutionally denying that belief could very well be an effective weapon against murder in the long term? (Even if we have to accept a couple potential extra deaths short term due to a possible decrease in the deterrence effect)

[Phmcw]

Common sense my hairy arse.

Common sense would dictate that we remove those undesirable elements from society, permanently.

Okay.. I don't like what you're saying or doing to this world. Does that give me the right to murder you? "To permanently remove you from this society" as a harmful agent?

No.

I don't think the West is quite orwellian enough for thought crimes to be a capital crime just yet...

Let me ask you a question:
It's the middle of the night, a huge hulking mound of manflesh kicks down the door.
He proudly proclaims that he's going to stab you in the eye and then rape your wife and kids.
Next to you is a gun.

Do you:
A. Shoot the fucker in the head
B. Give him a stern talking to about the rights and wrongs of his actions
C. "Take what you wish.  I can't stop you."

Let me present you with this alternative scenario : The same guys enter your house with the exact same intend. He stab you twenty two time in your sleep and proceed to rape your wife and children : Would you rather
A. Die
B. Die
C. Die

That's way more likely to happen if you don't make sure every part of your country is civilized, fund school and social aid enough and proceed to establish a civilized society.

[olemars]

I don't even understand what you guys are arguing about. This might be from lack of trying.

[Nadaka]

I don't even understand what you guys are arguing about. This might be from lack of trying.

I'm in the same boat. I have no idea what is going on with that. I understand why Norway doesn't have a death penalty. Even though I approve of the death penalty in special cases, not having one is a legitimate and respectable decision. Especially compared to the other extreme where death penalty is overused, applied to less severe crimes and used against the innocent, reformable or disproportionately used against minorities.

On topic: Do people think that this attack will increase resistance and persecution of immigrants or lead to groups that do so becoming more marginalized?

[ed boy]

Stopping an immediate threat is not even in the same league as an execution. Stop with the strawmen.

Stopping an immediate threat with lethal force  is a category of execution. Nor was I strawmanning. Glowcat asked for an example that did not include self-defense. I gave an example that included defense of others, but not self-defense. That is not a strawman. To be specific, Glowcat asked for an example that did not violate Hiiri's definition of self-defense, but looking back through his past posts he has not given any explicit definition, so I took self-defense to mean defense of the self.

You can't see why that sort of belief could cause problems and costs in a society as a whole, and why institutionally denying that belief could very well be an effective weapon against murder in the long term? (Even if we have to accept a couple potential extra deaths short term due to a possible decrease in the deterrence effect)

I can certainly see that, and I recognize that it is a complicated issue with no easy answer. You're putting words in my mouth. At no point in this thread did I state that I was in favour of capital punishment. I have posted three times in the thread before this post. The first time was pointing out logical inconsistencies in an argument against capital punishment. The second was clarifying what I said in the first post. The third was providing an example situation of when capital punishment would be a possibility. Pointing out a flaw in an argument does not mean that I support the opposite.

I don't even understand what you guys are arguing about. This might be from lack of trying.

I started out as a discussion of what punishments that norwegian justice system would impose, then a discussion of whether other forms (including execution) would be more appropriate, then a discussion of whether execution is ever appropriate.

On topic: Do people think that this attack will increase resistance and persecution of immigrants or lead to groups that do so becoming more marginalized?

Given that Breivik was not an immigrant, I don't think there'll be anything bad coming to them. The only person to be reflected badly upon in the view of the general public in this situation is Breivik. I do expect that the right-wing political groups in norway might suffer a fair bit, though.

[Phmcw]

Ed boy> that's straw manning enough, defense of other people count as self defense in justice.

@Olemar > diverse arguments on death penalty, objectivism and immigration.

[Grakelin]

Where as we now look back at the Romans and think of them as well dress blood thirsty brutes, our decedents will probably look back at us and think of us as being quite silly for allowing repeat offenders back onto the streets to rob, rape and murder again, or for allowing large swathes of our towns and cities to be turned into third world ghettos.

The Romans let anybody who wanted into the nation join, as long as they were willing to assimilate.

Don't spoil the thread with uneducated ramblings. If I wanted to read somebody with no idea what is going on rant and rave, I would read Breivik's manifesto.

[ed boy]

defense of other people count as self defense in justice.

That is very open to interpretation. For example, of the nine sources on the first google page of searching "definition of self defence", four of them do not include other people.

the act of defending yourself

The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another.

Self defense is the action by which a person protects himself from any bodily harm arising out of an encounters or attacks from other person either by protecting him or by blocking the opponents advancement by a counter attack.

the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant

[Leafsnail]

Stopping an immediate threat with lethal force  is a category of execution.

It's not.  Every definition I can find involves either condemning a person or doing it via the legal system.  Unless you're somehow comparing it to a gangland execution which is clearly something completely different.

And maybe Hiiri had the wrong definition of self defence in mind, but that doesn't change his point about "only kill people if it's necessary to save innocent people".

[Phmcw]

law the right to defend one's person, family, or property against attack or threat of attack by the use of no more force than is reasonable

Here's one definition (world's English dictionary) that fit mine.

Anyway, self defense or the immediate defense of other from bodily harm is the same idea.

[ed boy]

Stopping an immediate threat with lethal force  is a category of execution.

It's not.  Every definition I can find involves either condemning a person or doing it via the legal system.  Unless you're somehow comparing it to a gangland execution which is clearly something completely different.

And maybe Hiiri had the wrong definition of self defence in mind, but that doesn't change his point about "only kill people if it's necessary to save innocent people".

Most of the dictionaries that I found listed execution as killing someone within a legal framework. Self-defence is part of a legal framework, so stopping a threat to your person with lethal force comes under that definition of execution.

As for saving innocent people, how directly do you consider saving them? Imagine that you are a doctor, and you have five patients suffering organ failure. There is another man who has come in for a check up and is a perfect match for the others. Would you kill the man and harvest his organs? You would be preventing their death, thus saving them, yet most people would not do it. You need to be a lot clearer about what you mean by 'save' before you can make statements like that.

Here's one definition (world's English dictionary) that fit mine.

Anyway, self defense or the immediate defense of other from bodily harm is the same idea.

The whole point of the list of definitions was to show that, depending on where you ask, there other people may or may not be included, and you cannot assume either way in a discussion without clarifying.

[Phmcw]

Meh, it's ok to take the risk of killing someone, by a reasonable application of force, to stop him from inflicting bodily harm to someone else.
There , I'm sure Hiiri will agree as well. And yes "take the risk" not "if he do it you have the right to kill him". It's not an execution, as death is only a side effect of stopping him.

To clarify : you don't have the right to kill him, you have the right to inflict him the harm necessary to stop him, while if possible keeping him alive.

[zombat]

"The Romans let anybody who wanted into the nation join, as long as they were willing to assimilate.

Don't spoil the thread with uneducated ramblings. If I wanted to read somebody with no idea what is going on rant and rave, I would read Breivik's manifesto. "

1. Rome didn't allow non romans to be citizens until later in the empire
2. Citizenship had to be earned in the auxiliaries
3. Most historians argue that this marked the decline of rome's social cohesion

No idea what's going on?
Have you ever lived in an 'enriched' area?
Have you?
I have. Do you have any idea what is like to walk through areas of your home town that look completely alien?
Filled with people, including second and third generation, who choose to speak in foreign tongues and dress like they're still in the desert
People that stare at you with dirty looks, some even act like cocky shits asking what a "kaffir like you is doing in their area"
Do you have any idea what it is like having the ruling class import more and more of these people to destroy the legacy of your nation, or worse, to create a cheap workforce for big business.

That is why support for the so called 'far right' parties has been on the rise in europe for past several years.

[Phmcw]

Yeah Zombat, and have you wondered what the hell does the police do? Or where did these kids go to school?
Or why are these gangs running havoc when there are policeman close? As if someone didn't care enough to take the obvious steps? HAve you ever gone to France likely. For all his cute words, since Sarko the situation has gotten worse.
I don't deny you that the situation is pretty bad in some area, just that the right wing make it actually worse.
Since the UMP is in power, they disbanded the proximity police that made things better, but made more patrol in the rich area.
Have you ever wondered how came that the nationalist has more vote in the ghetto than anywhere else, more votes than there where natives? Because THEY want their security improved.
Our politician, left and right, are playing with that, the left to convince their electorate to vote for them despite their shortcoming because the right is racist, and the right to vote for them despite their shortcoming, because they are anti immigration.
But both are playing hand in hand in a lot of part of Europe, because else we would look are their budget.