WHY Lethal Injections NEED to be given WITH the Murderer AWAKE!

[Deleted]

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you. "

- Nietzsche

I was thinking the same thing!

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Neither does making ridiculous comparatives with Nazi Germany.

It isn't always ridiculous. The person you quoted was commenting on the dangers of dehumanizing people, especially in the perception of the public.

Even if you thought his post was ridiculous, linking to Godwin's Law isn't saying anything other than "You mentioned Nazis in a comparison!" which is not an inherently flawed thing in itself.

[Catta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

That is all.

Its quite clear you see the point as i did not mention any specific case.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 09:42 PM ----------

It isn't always ridiculous. The person you quoted was commenting on the dangers of dehumanizing people, especially in the perception of the public.

Even if you thought his post was ridiculous, linking to Godwin's Law isn't saying anything other than "You mentioned Nazis in a comparison!" which is not an inherently flawed thing in itself.

I didnt even mention Nazis. He drew the comparison himself!

[Deleted]

Why do people feel the need to post Godwin's Law? It's not like it has any significance on the discussion.

If you read the article you would know why it has a significance in this (and any other) discussion.

It is used to stop people forcing the argument of "Hitler/Nazi's held that idea so you must be wrong".

It's a moronic, lazy and ignorant way to validate your own side of an argument.

[Wikiy]

If you read the article you would know why it has a significance in this (and any other) discussion.

It is used to stop people forcing the argument of "Hitler/Nazi's held that idea so you must be wrong".

It's a moronic, lazy and ignorant way to validate your own side of an argument.

Except what Nazis did is directly analogous to state-run executions, supported by a significant % of the population saying "they're worse than animals" or "they're not human", etc. I'm not talking about the victims of these executions now, just the excuses people use to justify it.

[Catta]

If you read the article you would know why it has a significance in this (and any other) discussion.

It is used to stop people forcing the argument of "Hitler/Nazi's held that idea so you must be wrong".

It's a moronic, lazy and ignorant way to validate your own side of an argument.

I want to point out that i did not mention the nazis - the comparison was drawn by you guys. Could just as well have meant slavery and how it was okay because they weren't really human.

[Deleted]

Except what Nazis did is directly analogous to state-run executions, supported by a significant % of the population saying "they're worse than animals" or "they're not human", etc. I'm not talking about the victims of these executions now, just the excuses people use to justify it.

Well if we ignore:
The fact that the Nazi's executed those with physical and mental handicaps...
As well as those who were racially different...
Along with those who protested against their rule...
Oh and those who helped and aided jews and the allies...

Along with the fact that I mentioned in the post you quoted that using the analogy of "Well Hitler did X so X must be wrong" is a moronic, lazy and ignorant way of addressing a point and strengthening your own side of the argument...

And the fact we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship, meaning a place where people can freely protest and public outcry can very easily be seen on these kind of issues...

Then yes, they are comparable points.

[Catta]

Well if we ignore:
The fact that the Nazi's executed those with physical and mental handicaps...
As well as those who were racially different...
Along with those who protested against their rule...
Oh and those who helped and aided jews and the allies...

Along with the fact that I mentioned in the post you quoted that using the analogy of "Well Hitler did X so X must be wrong" is a moronic, lazy and ignorant way of addressing a point and strengthening your own side of the argument...

And the fact we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship, meaning a place where people can freely protest and public outcry can very easily be seen on these kind of issues...

Then yes, they are comparable points.

Your first paragraph shows that you didnt understand what the person you quoted wrote.

[kosuko]

Why don't we just cut their heads or hang them on the Times Square?

That would in fact be quite efficient. Also, some people (like me, eventhough my country doesn't do capital punishment) believe that a death sentence is more for the "getting rid of" purpose than the actual punishment part.. Cause let's face it, the only one you punish with a death sentence are the people who care for the sentenced person... Dying yourself doesn't really punish you much, even when awake it only takes a few seconds.

[smelltheglove]

Neither does making ridiculous comparatives with Nazi Germany.

but who is the one that godwins the thread, he who suggests a course of action central to the horror of the holocaust, or he who points out the simile?

[Deleted]

No the majority of the workforce was Egyptian farmers who was "unemployed" then the Nile was flooding the farmland, and they where paid labors not slaves.

Actually , it was a form of tax , Egyptian citizens would work for short periods of time (quarrying, hauling rocks) then a replacement crew of workers would fulfill their community obligations. Ofc there were also 'skilled specialists' that did get payed.
ontopic, death penalty should only be used in extreme cases where their guilt is above every doubt.

[Deleted]

I also kinda like Penn & Tellers take on the death penalty. It has kinda some swearing in it, but shouldn't be too harsh. But it contains old footage of executions. Beware.

[Puck]

The Death penalty is completely unethical and unnecessary. Sometimes the only way to protect people is to kill a dangerous person, but not when there are alternatives that accomplish the same exact goal without the unneeded further loss of life.

The death penalty is nothing more than fulfilling people's primal need to witness "evil" being punished under the guise of justice. Justice for whom, I wonder.

[Letmesleep]

I don't really normally like discussing political things on forums, and I haven't read through the whole thread to see if someone else addressed this, but I feel compelled to.

It is definitely possible to support abortion and voluntary euthanasia, while generally opposing executions and clubbing baby seals to death, and remain completely intellectually honest. It all comes down to suffering vs. pleasure. A man who has a painful terminal illness may decide that his suffering from the disease is greater than the pleasure he derives from staying alive. An unwanted child will suffer at the hands of the mother who wishes to abort him, or perhaps the remaining family of a woman who dies dues to carrying a dangerous pregnancy to term might suffer far more than a baby aborted before it can know suffering.

Similarly, the suffering inflicted on the few innocents who get executed unintentionally can easily be seen to outweigh the gain that is had by executing those who truly are guilty. And while I'm far from being a vegetarian or a hardcore animal rights activist, I can certainly see how killing an animal, say, for a fashionable type of fur, is completely unreasonable.

Anyway, the tl;dr version of this is that you clearly haven't thought on this subject long enough to so bluntly make such a claim.

Meh, you're right about being able to support the others while not supporting the death penalty. As you can tell from the rest of my post which that quote came from, I was deeply depressed and pretty pissed off. While it sounded like I really care about the death penalty, the truth is it's euthanasia that I really care about. I was attacking the idea that "all life is sacred", which is a common argument used against the death penalty. If a different argument is used like the one you did, that someone might be afraid of sentencing innocents to something irreversible, then my argument doesn't hold up. Even the argument that the death penalty is somehow revenge (I don't agree) would require a separate discussion.

Essentially each motive for supporting or not supporting the death penalty would have to be addressed separately, and me slapping the "intellectually dishonest" label on anyone who doesn't support them all is ironically intellectually dishonest because it doesn't cover all the variables. So in other words, my argument was correct on a smaller scale, but on a larger scale it wasn't because it didn't cover all the reasons people don't support the death penalty. I thought someone had found my quote again, but I see this was just a necroed thread. I figured I'd respond to this now though since I'd be an ass for refusing to admit I was wrong.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

If you read the article you would know why it has a significance in this (and any other) discussion.

It is used to stop people forcing the argument of "Hitler/Nazi's held that idea so you must be wrong".

It's a moronic, lazy and ignorant way to validate your own side of an argument.

Which isn't how the person was using it, nor is that what the law itself says. The law simply states that the possibly of a comparison involving Nazis approaches 1 as the thread goes on longer. That people are using it in as an attempt to discourage Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't make linking the article a valid form of argument.

[Stir]

Reductio ad Hitlerum.

*Standing ovation*

[Deleted]

I'm sorry for your loss.

The thread was finished after the first two replies, the OP got absolutely wrecked, why are people still discussing it?