Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net
 


       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
jcstar

Saddam Trial

I just saw the news tonight. CTV and CBC are both reporting that Saddam Husein has been found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to deat by hanging.

But, he won't be hung right away, as he's appealing hos conviction.

When convicted, he was forced to stand before the judge, trembling. He ranted and raved.

This was supposed to unite Iraq, but the coutry seems more divided than ever.

Andy.
Aimee

But at least the people speaking out don't get walked outside the room and shot on the spot now eh?
Dax

Does this make Rumsfeld an accomplice since he was the one that supplied him with the weapons?
Pounce

Dax wrote:
Does this make Rumsfeld an accomplice since he was the one that supplied him with the weapons?

He would be an accomplice if he knowingly provided the weapons to murder Iraqis. I believe the support provided to Hussein was in response to Iran gaining the upperhand in the Iran/Iraq war. It was not an alliance the US wanted but they feared an Iranian conquest of Iraq. International politics often make for strange bedfellows.
Hans

1) Saddam Hussain is without doubt a terrible monster

2) Death penalty is not acceptable under any circumstances

3) They had the chance to run a decent trial, but blew it

4) The situation will probably lead to further complications in Iraque
katethegreat

I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out.
But I can't help thinking with Saddam that if he's left, and the situation worsens (I'm not seeing much sign of it getting better) he could potentially regain power.
The pics on the news show that this is no solution to any of the troubles, the country is so divided its impossible to please everyone.

Rumsfeld may not officially be an accomplice, but he's no innocent in all of this - america helped build Saddam up to what he became, they can't deny that.
Britain and America can't leave Iraq now, cos they've dug themselves in too far - they shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

I'm only happy that Bush can't get another term. He's come close enough - wouldn't take him another 4 years to destroy the planet.
Hans

katethegreat wrote:
I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out.


It is also proven that the presence of death penalty makes a society harder, which leads to more severe crime. In reality, it actually works contradictory to it'ęs purpose of preventing crime.
katethegreat

Dvarg wrote:
katethegreat wrote:
I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out.


It is also proven that the presence of death penalty makes a society harder, which leads to more severe crime. In reality, it actually works contradictory to it'ęs purpose of preventing crime.


Here here!Applause I think mental punishment is far harsher - fighting violence with violence will never solve anything.
I don't know who said this quote, but it sums it up for me:
"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
katethegreat wrote:
I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out.


It is also proven that the presence of death penalty makes a society harder, which leads to more severe crime. In reality, it actually works contradictory to it'ęs purpose of preventing crime.


I disagree.

But I'll save the debate on capital punishment for another time.
Hans

Dax wrote:
I disagree.

Well. It's nothing to disagree about as it is scientifically and statistically proven.

If you chose to not believe in statistics and science, that's okay for me.
Matthew

My sister's boyfriend had an interesting point:
Funny how this news comes up [a victory for the republican party] just as there will be national elections for the Senate and the House.
Hmmm....
MademoiselleMusicals

katethegreat wrote:
I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out..


Exactly my views. He should be locked in a cell with the key thrown away. Death is too good.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
I disagree.

Well. It's nothing to disagree about as it is scientifically and statistically proven.

If you chose to not believe in statistics and science, that's okay for me.


Your supposed science and stats are just so much bs. So save your time.

It is a fact that a mass murderer wouldn't have killed so many if he/she was put down at the first victim.

MademoiselleMusicals wrote:
katethegreat wrote:
I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out..


Exactly my views. He should be locked in a cell with the key thrown away. Death is too good.


That presupposes a conscience, some of which don't have any.

A dog is put down when it goes mad for the benefit of all.

Now don't get me wrong here, I do not support our current system which has demonstrated time and time again it is flawed. But it needs to be fixed not thrown out.
Hans

Dax wrote:
It is a fact that a mass murderer wouldn't have killed so many if he/she was put down at the first victim.


It is a documented fact that death penalty decrease the sense of how much a life is worth in society, thus makes it easier to commit more violent forms of crime.

Dax wrote:
A dog is put down when it goes mad for the benefit of all.


Some of us think mad dogs and human beings are different things. Each to his own, I suppose.
Pounce

Dvarg wrote:
katethegreat wrote:
I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out.

It depends if the murderer has remorse.

Quote:
It is also proven that the presence of death penalty makes a society harder, which leads to more severe crime. In reality, it actually works contradictory to it'ęs purpose of preventing crime.

I'd like to see the studies. That supposes that the presence of the death penalty is what drives a society toward a significant degree of increased hardness. A hardness that can be measured. And when removed the society becomes noticeably less severe.
Pounce

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
It is a fact that a mass murderer wouldn't have killed so many if he/she was put down at the first victim.


It is a documented fact that death penalty decrease the sense of how much a life is worth in society, thus makes it easier to commit more violent forms of crime.

Is that the same for abortion?
Hans

Pounce wrote:
I'd like to see the studies. That supposes that the presence of the death penalty is what drives a society toward a significant degree of increased hardness. A hardness that can be measured. And when removed the society becomes noticeably less severe.


Exactly. Internationally renowned criminologist and sociologist Nils Christie wrote several books on the subject recently. He performed his studies all over the world, but mainly in the US, where it was most easy to measure the amount and severeness of crimes compared with where there is and was death penalty.

I believe this is the book: A Suitable Amount Of Crime, but I am not completely sure, since it has been years since I read it.

Pounce wrote:
Is that the same for abortion?


Haven't read anything about it. It's definately an interresting thought. I'm totally pro choice. But I think it's possible that an increasing number of people who chooses abortion may make it easier for some people to do the same as an easy solution. I don't think that is a good thing.
jazzygirlsings

futureMUNGOJERRIE wrote:
My sister's boyfriend had an interesting point:
Funny how this news comes up [a victory for the republican party] just as there will be national elections for the Senate and the House.
Hmmm....


THANK YOU! I was just going to post this!!!!

(I'm glad I wasn't lazy and actually read the thread! LOL!)

But I TOTALLY agree with this! Applause
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
It is a fact that a mass murderer wouldn't have killed so many if he/she was put down at the first victim.


It is a documented fact that death penalty decrease the sense of how much a life is worth in society, thus makes it easier to commit more violent forms of crime.


Please...Usage of weasel words does not make them facts.

Has the death penalty made it easier to commit more violent crime? No. (And this is simple history.)

Dvarg wrote:
Some of us think mad dogs and human beings are different things. Each to his own, I suppose.


Correct. Mad dogs and human beings are indeed different things. (Someday you will perhaps see how much a mad dog a human being can become and then you will see things differently)

Dvarg wrote:
Pounce wrote:
I'd like to see the studies. That supposes that the presence of the death penalty is what drives a society toward a significant degree of increased hardness. A hardness that can be measured. And when removed the society becomes noticeably less severe.


Exactly. Internationally renowned criminologist and sociologist Nils Christie wrote several books on the subject recently. He performed his studies all over the world, but mainly in the US, where it was most easy to measure the amount and severeness of crimes compared with where there is and was death penalty.

*dismisses it*

Experience is far more relevant than some foolish study. (Yes, I called it foolish. Personal experience always wins out. Let some jackfool idiot try to talk his way out of getting a steel pipe cracked across his skull..not because Mr. Steel Pipe wants your valuables. Oh no, but because he kinda likes to break bones.)
Hans

Dax wrote:
Has the death penalty made it easier to commit more violent crime? No. (And this is simple history.)


You obviously have no idea of how basic social mechanisms work.

Besides, even if death penalty were effective, it would still be unacceptable as it is inhuman and does not belong in a civilised society.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Has the death penalty made it easier to commit more violent crime? No. (And this is simple history.)


You obviously have no idea of how basic social mechanisms work.


And you obviously have little idea how life works. See? I can play the condescension card too. (There is a reason why psychology and psychiatry is derided for its inaccuracies. One of said reasons is simply pointing out history.)

Dvarg wrote:
Besides, even if death penalty were effective, it would still be unacceptable as it is inhuman and does not belong in a civilised society.


People who enjoy murder and torture are not human and do not belong in a "civilised" society.

I don't suppoort our current system because it is flawed.
What I do support: The cop sniping a hostage taker; the woman who took a baseball bat to her child's would-be rapist; the person who shot and killed several people breakiing into his home. Essentially and legally considered self-defense and in essense, a death penalty that prevents those subhuman creatures from harming anyone else.
Hans

Dax wrote:
And you obviously have little idea how life works.


Dvarg wrote:
If you chose to not believe in statistics and science, that's okay for me.


Dax wrote:
One of said reasons is simply pointing out history.


Funny how history documents how the degree of violence and crime in general increase as a result of introducing death penalty, while history demonstrates that violence and crime in fact decrease because death penalty is abandoned.

Dax wrote:
People who enjoy murder and torture are not human and do not belong in a "civilised" society.


You have a very primitive and extremely terrifying perspective on humanity.

Dax wrote:
Essentially and legally considered self-defense and in essense, a death penalty that prevents those subhuman creatures from harming anyone else.


Wrong. Self defence and death sentence are two wildly different things.
Lazarus (Adam G)

futureMUNGOJERRIE wrote:
My sister's boyfriend had an interesting point:
Funny how this news comes up [a victory for the republican party] just as there will be national elections for the Senate and the House.
Hmmm....


The gas prices have also gone down in the last few weeks. I find that intresting...

I have nothing but pity for Saddam. He's at the mercy of his own people.
jcstar

Lazarus (Adam G) wrote:
The gas prices have also gone down in the last few weeks. I find that intresting...

I have nothing but pity for Saddam. He's at the mercy of his own people.


Why hang Saddam when he should be crucified?

Andy.
Lazarus (Adam G)

jcstar wrote:
Lazarus (Adam G) wrote:
The gas prices have also gone down in the last few weeks. I find that intresting...

I have nothing but pity for Saddam. He's at the mercy of his own people.


Why hang Saddam when he should be crucified?

Andy.


Now, comparing him to Jesus is a bit much. Wink
jcstar

That wasn't my intention.

I mean, nail him up and leave him to suffer and be eaten alive by dogs, cats and birds.

Then, everyone is happy.

But seriously, I have no pity for him... He's just... SoDamn Insane!

Oh well. It probably won't be a public hanging, anyway. Sad CNN and FOX would have a feild day with that one.

Andy.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Funny how history documents how the degree of violence and crime in general increase as a result of introducing death penalty, while history demonstrates that violence and crime in fact decrease because death penalty is abandoned.

But you didn't post any history just your opinion.

Here is a historical stat: The murder rate fell 60 percent since Texas started using the death penalty seriously in the 1990s, while the national murder rate fell 33 percent.

Societies unwilling to execute their worst criminals reveal the low value they place on the lives of victims and future victims.

Dvarg wrote:
You have a very primitive and extremely terrifying perspective on humanity.


And you have an extremely low view of humanity by claiming the likes of Dahmer as human. (Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty but I'm fairly certain no one shed a freaking tear when his fellow inmates killed him in prison.)

Dvarg wrote:
Wrong. Self defence and death sentence are two wildly different things.


A death sentence nonetheless no matter how you want to play lawyer.
Hans

Dax wrote:
But you didn't post any history just your opinion.


Remember this?

Dvarg wrote:
Internationally renowned criminologist and sociologist Nils Christie wrote several books on the subject recently. He performed his studies all over the world, but mainly in the US, where it was most easy to measure the amount and severeness of crimes compared with where there is and was death penalty.

I believe this is the book: A Suitable Amount Of Crime, but I am not completely sure, since it has been years since I read it.


Which period in history do you think was least brutal? The middle ages? There were executions galore.

You are aware most murders are committed in affect? Which means the murderer does not consider the outcome of his actions, among them the possibility of death penalty.

Dax wrote:
And you have an extremely low view of humanity.


I believe the mere use of a word like "subhuman" makes it clear whom has the lowest, most cynical view of humanity.

Dax wrote:
A death sentence nonetheless no matter how you want to play lawyer.


It's not a question of juridical paragraphs. It's a question of universal human rights.
Dax

[quote="Dvarg"]
Dax wrote:
But you didn't post any history just your opinion.


Remember this?

Dvarg wrote:
Internationally renowned criminologist and sociologist Nils Christie wrote several books on the subject recently. He performed his studies all over the world, but mainly in the US, where it was most easy to measure the amount and severeness of crimes compared with where there is and was death penalty.


Means not a goddamn thing.

A person's published perception isn't historical fact. (a perfect example is one I gave you)

Dvarg wrote:
Which period in history do you think was least brutal? The middle ages? There were executions galore.

Meaningless bs.

How many people do you think are dying every freaking day just this past year alone? (And it isn't just which period in history one should look into, but in what geographical region as well. Such as the Northeastearn region of North America, say...a thousand years ago.)

Dvarg wrote:
You are aware most murders are committed in affect? Which means the murderer does not consider the outcome of his actions, among them the possibility of death penalty.


*dismisses such*

To me it isn't so much for deterrance as it is for preventing the creation of future victims.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
And you have an extremely low view of humanity.


I believe the mere use of a word like "subhuman" makes it clear whom has the lowest, most cynical view of humanity.


Explain Jeffrey Dahmer's humanity to me and to his victims.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
A death sentence nonetheless no matter how you want to play lawyer.


It's not a question of juridical paragraphs. It's a question of universal human rights.


You lose your human rights when you made the choice of ridding yourself of your humanity.

Try some genuine research next post. (Assuming you decide to respond)
MaryMag

Dax, do you have any idea how much I adore you?
Hans

Dax wrote:
A person's published perception isn't historical fact. (a perfect example is one I gave you)


I listed one of my resources. It's not the personal biases of some random person. It is facts on death penalty and punishments in general based on statistics and scientific theories, collected by an internationally renowned professor in criminology.

The books I've read on the topic (a few) are currently at another part of the country, so I can't quote them. I cannot comment on your statistic, as I haven't read any interpretations of it based on theory.

Dax wrote:
To me it isn't so much for deterrance as it is for preventing the creation of future victims.


That is a valid argument in itself. But it doesn't change the fact that death penalty by nature is unethical.

Dax wrote:
Explain Jeffrey Dahmer's humanity to me and to his victims.


I don't know who Jeffrey Dahmer is, and don't think particular examples of extreme criminals are relevant in a discussion on the principle of death penalty

Dax wrote:
You lose your human rights when you made the choice of ridding yourself of your humanity.


Which part of universal is difficult? "Ridding yourself of humanity" isn't something anyone can do. I am actually astonished that anyone can allow themselves to put into words such a revolting opinion. (Are you pulling my leg? Pardon me if this thread has been a joke I didn't get until now.)

Anyway, even if you say that someone "rids themselves of humanity", it is we, as part of society, who violate our humanity if we allow death penalty.

Dax wrote:
Try some genuine research next post.


I think you should get to know a nice organisation called Amnesty International, and look particularly close at this informative site.
Jordan

Dvarg wrote:
I don't know who Jeffrey Dahmer is...


Purely for reference, I appreciate the point you made about examples but thought a reference should be made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
katethegreat

jcstar wrote:
That wasn't my intention.

I mean, nail him up and leave him to suffer and be eaten alive by dogs, cats and birds.

Then, everyone is happy.

But seriously, I have no pity for him... He's just... SoDamn Insane!

Oh well. It probably won't be a public hanging, anyway. Sad CNN and FOX would have a feild day with that one.

Andy.



As Much as I disagree with the death penalty and all of this comment I just have to pick up on one bit of it

Quote:

Then, everyone is happy.


Its not that simple. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not (I'm not going to get involved with Dax and Dvarg's conversation at this stage, but you know my opinion) excuting Saddam will not solve every problem and certainly won't make everybody happy. I'm sure I've already pointed out that there were both celebration and riots in Iraq at the news of the verdict. Keeping him alive won't change the situation , killing him won't either - and both could make it worse.
Hans

GayBoy wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer


Just to make things clear - it's not as if I don't know there are extreme criminals in the world. I do think society has the right and duty to take care of problems like that.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
A person's published perception isn't historical fact. (a perfect example is one I gave you)


I listed one of my resources. It's not the personal biases of some random person. It is facts on death penalty and punishments in general based on statistics and scientific theories, collected by an internationally renowned professor in criminology.


And easily dismissed because of the lack of personal experience. Toss the fool in a dark alley armed with a .45 and see what he does.
I really cannot comment on your book because I've not read it. And neither will I seeing it as a foolish waste of time and endeavor that only proves that armchair generals should stay well away from making any policy. Especially foreign generals that likely doesn't see the need to bear arms to begin with. (I should wonder if he had ever had a gun pointed at his head)

Dvarg wrote:
I cannot comment on your statistic, as I haven't read any interpretations of it based on theory.

Nothing needed to reinterpret.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
To me it isn't so much for deterrance as it is for preventing the creation of future victims.


That is a valid argument in itself. But it doesn't change the fact that death penalty by nature is unethical.


*shrugs* Your opinion on ethics.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Explain Jeffrey Dahmer's humanity to me and to his victims.


I don't know who Jeffrey Dahmer is, and don't think particular examples of extreme criminals are relevant in a discussion on the principle of death penalty


On the contrary, it is very relevant. He and his ilk are justification for such an extreme penalty.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
You lose your human rights when you made the choice of ridding yourself of your humanity.


Which part of universal is difficult? "Ridding yourself of humanity" isn't something anyone can do. I am actually astonished that anyone can allow themselves to put into words such a revolting opinion. (Are you pulling my leg? Pardon me if this thread has been a joke I didn't get until now.)


The joke here is your lamentable lack of experience with a seamier side of humanity. And yet, you think you can somehow see them as human when they clearly see you as a sucker if not prey.

Dvarg wrote:
Anyway, even if you say that someone "rids themselves of humanity", it is we, as part of society, who violate our humanity if we allow death penalty.

Your opinion .Justice is a part of humanity.
And to quote: "If Capital Punishment is state sponsored murder, then any lesser punishment is a state sponsored murder of Justice."

And another: "Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices. To equate the lives of killers with those of victims is the worst kind of moral equivalency. If capital punishment is state murder, then imprisonment is state kidnapping and restitution is state theft."

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Try some genuine research next post.


I think you should get to know a nice organisation called Amnesty International, and look particularly close at this informative site.


Meaningless, in light of the fact that I have already posted that I was against the death penalty as it is implemented in the US today. The process needs fixing not tossing.

Now as far as the execution of Saddam Hussein goes, I'm a little indifferent. It is for the Iraqi people to decide.
Hans

Dax wrote:
Nothing needed to reinterpret.


Statistics on it's own does not explain anything. It needs scientific interpretation to gain meaning.

Dax wrote:
The joke here is your lamentable lack of experience with a seamier side of humanity.


Dvarg wrote:
It's not as if I don't know there are extreme criminals in the world.


Dax wrote:
You think you can somehow see them as human when they clearly see you as a sucker if not prey.


It's one of those abilities which separates us from animals. It's called "empathy".

Apart from that, I don't think I have anything to add to this debate except I am shocked to the core of my ethical spine by reading things like this:

"Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices."

What kind of person is that blood thirsty?
Jordan

Dvarg wrote:
GayBoy wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer


Just to make things clear - it's not as if I don't know there are extreme criminals in the world. I do think society has the right and duty to take care of problems like that.


I know, that's why I said it was just for reference. Wink
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
It's one of those abilities which separates us from animals. It's called "empathy".


Oh, you mean the very thing that "they" lack. Meaning those that deserve the death penalty lack that which separates us from "animals." (Although I would take issue with the use of the word "animal.") Still, you prove my point that they are no longer human.

Dvarg wrote:
Apart from that, I don't think I have anything to add to this debate except I am shocked to the core of my ethical spine by reading things like this:

"Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices."

What kind of person is that blood thirsty?


*shrugs*

Watch your girlfriend (or other close friend) get raped/attacked. I'll hand you a gun.

If you are as unexperienced as it seems you are at handling such situations or even handling such individuals then I pity you as the born victiim you are. The US is the most violent country in the world. (And I was born and raised in one of the worst spots). I have no problem separating my empathy and compassion from those that flatly don't deserve either.
Hans

Dax wrote:
Oh, you mean the very thing that "they" lack. Still, you prove my point that they are no longer human.


I didn't say that they are not longer human. I meant that we, meaning the entire human species, is separated from other species through empathy. Which means we, as a species, are able to choose to treat specific members of the species like humans, too, even though they are mentally disturbed, psychopaths, "evil" or whatever you choose to call it.

Dax wrote:
Watch your girlfriend (or other close friend) get raped/attacked. I'll hand you a gun.


I hope I'll not be so traumatized that I'll feel the need for that kind of revenge. And if I do, I appreciate I live in a society which tries to hinder it's members to take the law in their own hands. My objective sense of justice might become just a little bit clouded.

Dax wrote:
The US is the most violent country in the world. (And I was born and raised in one of the worst spots).


That's puzzling. I live in one of the most peaceful places on earth. Yet your place is where death penalty is practiced, as opposed to my place. Following your logic, people ought to run wild here, since there is no such threat present to force us to behave well.

Dax wrote:
I pity you as the born victim you are.


What's your thoughts on social darwinism?
OneSongGlory

katethegreat wrote:
Dvarg wrote:
katethegreat wrote:
I don't know what I think about this. I don't beleive in the death penalty - I think there is no bigger punishment than having to live with what you've done, death is almost an easy way out.


It is also proven that the presence of death penalty makes a society harder, which leads to more severe crime. In reality, it actually works contradictory to it'ęs purpose of preventing crime.


Here here!Applause I think mental punishment is far harsher - fighting violence with violence will never solve anything.
I don't know who said this quote, but it sums it up for me:
"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"


Mahatma Gandhi
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Oh, you mean the very thing that "they" lack. Still, you prove my point that they are no longer human.


I didn't say that they are not longer human. I meant that we, meaning the entire human species, is separated from other species through empathy. Which means we, as a species, are able to choose to treat specific members of the species like humans, too, even though they are mentally disturbed, psychopaths, "evil" or whatever you choose to call it.


And we can choose to permanently remove them as a threat to society.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Watch your girlfriend (or other close friend) get raped/attacked. I'll hand you a gun.


I hope I'll not be so traumatized that I'll feel the need for that kind of revenge. And if I do, I appreciate I live in a society which tries to hinder it's members to take the law in their own hands. My objective sense of justice might become just a little bit clouded.


You miss the point. Imagine such crime happening at that moment and you have the opportunity and the weapon to prevent it. Do you lose your nerve? (Likely it seems). Or do you decide there and then to pull the trigger?

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
The US is the most violent country in the world. (And I was born and raised in one of the worst spots).


That's puzzling. I live in one of the most peaceful places on earth. Yet your place is where death penalty is practiced, as opposed to my place. Following your logic, people ought to run wild here, since there is no such threat present to force us to behave well.


Read my prior posts more carefully. As I already posted: "To me it isn't so much for deterrance as it is for preventing the creation of future victims."

It also seems to point out your inexperience with such loathsome individuals. Which may be good for you but really poor for making such policy.

Think of it this way. A social organism sometimes acquires cancerous cells that needs to be permanently removed.
rock_musicals

jcstar wrote:
Lazarus (Adam G) wrote:
The gas prices have also gone down in the last few weeks. I find that intresting...

I have nothing but pity for Saddam. He's at the mercy of his own people.


Why hang Saddam when he should be crucified?

Andy.




LOL! Laughing

Good point....
Hans

Dax wrote:
You miss the point. Imagine such crime happening at that moment and you have the opportunity and the weapon to prevent it. Do you lose your nerve? (Likely it seems). Or do you decide there and then to pull the trigger?


Self defence then and there and society cooly taking a life later are two fundamentally different situations. And most likely, I'd not be able to kill another person if I were in such a situation. You're probably right about that.

Dax wrote:
A social organism sometimes acquires cancerous cells that needs to be permanently removed.


Let's see if I have understood correctly: it seems brutality is one symptom of the sate your area is in. You propose to increase brutality to solve this problem. I assume there is some logic here, but I can't spot it.

Dax wrote:
Which may be good for you but really poor for making such policy.


My area is one of the most peaceful ones. Yours is amongst the most brutal ones. To me, that indicates that our policies is on the track of something good.
The REAL Ciaron

Oh just hang the bastard. All these people who spew this "Humans are above violence" would change their tune if their family was murdered in front of them.
Lazarus (Adam G)

The REAL Ciaron wrote:
Oh just hang the bastard. All these people who spew this "Humans are above violence" would change their tune if their family was murdered in front of them.


I just find him pathetic. It's depressing to watch him.

He deserves what he gets, but that doesn't make me hate him.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
You miss the point. Imagine such crime happening at that moment and you have the opportunity and the weapon to prevent it. Do you lose your nerve? (Likely it seems). Or do you decide there and then to pull the trigger?


Self defence then and there and society cooly taking a life later are two fundamentally different situations. And most likely, I'd not be able to kill another person if I were in such a situation. You're probably right about that.


Like I said, born victim.
Does my willingness to defend my friends, even with lethal force, make me a brute? Maybe in your eyes. But at least they know I have their back. Better a brute than a victim any day.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
A social organism sometimes acquires cancerous cells that needs to be permanently removed.


Let's see if I have understood correctly: it seems brutality is one symptom of the state your area is in. You propose to increase brutality to solve this problem. I assume there is some logic here, but I can't spot it.


No. Creating future victims is the problem. By permanently removing the subhumans who wish to victimise others we can easily solve this problem.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Which may be good for you but really poor for making such policy.


My area is one of the most peaceful ones. Yours is amongst the most brutal ones. To me, that indicates that our policies is on the track of something good.


Oh please.

There are a plethora of problems inherent in any society. The US is one of the largest nations in the world and its inherent problems are multitudinous in comparison to other nations that are far smaller. The policies set forth in nations such as Norway (some of which I admire I admit) are not only unfeasible in the US, but more than likely detrimental to itself.

You have admitted that you'd be a victim even if armed. This is something that most Americans would certainly take issue with.
What would a social darwinist say?
Hans

Dax wrote:
That is an unsubstantiated opinion.


What sort of evidence do you need?

Dax wrote:
Since Dahmer was mentioned earlier, please explain just how the hell he was created by society?


Most likely he was insane.

In general complex relations between individual habitus and social structures form the basis for an actor's choices. That does not mean he's not responsible for those actions or that violent actions are excusable. But it means such actions are possible to explain and therefore possible to prevent.

What is your explanation?

Dax wrote:
I hope whatever friends you have know that they cannot count on you in a tense situation.


Dvarg wrote:
I am willing to protect my friends and family. I do it by contributing to a society where they are in minimal danger.


It somehow appears more effective to prevent criminality from happening in the first place than your solution, which include killing the criminal after he has raped your mother (if you didn't happen to be there at the time).
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Does my willingness to defend my friends, even with lethal force, make me a brute? Maybe in your eyes. But at least they know I have their back.


I am willing to protect my friends and family. I do it by contributing to a society where they are in minimal danger.


Hmf. Not much comfort in a physical confrontation.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Creating future victims is the problem. By permanently removing the subhumans who wish to victimise others we can easily solve this problem.


I don't understand how this makes sense. The victims you mention are victims of some sort of brutality your society is a part of creating.

That is an unsubstantiated opinion. And likely will remain so. (Since Dahmer was mentioned earlier, please explain just how the hell he was created by society? Sweet Jesus! Don't tell me you imagine in some small way that criminals aren't responsible for their actions toward society since society created them to begin with?? That they had no choice in their actions??)

Dvarg wrote:
Removing the "subhumans" will only solve the problem temporarily, as the social mechanisms that create those "subhumans" continue to work. That way brutality recreates itself, which victimise innocent people.

I wrote too quickly.
Again, this unsubstantiated bit of bs reveals your vast inexperience. Those who actually believe this tripe needs the practical experience that only a dark alley in a crimeridden area can give. Once your kneecaps are broken by some middle-class thug wannabee, laughing at how well your legs went *crack* and you're condemned to limp for the rest of your life then and only then, will I take you a bit more seriously.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
The policies set forth in nations such as Norway are not only unfeasible in the US, but more than likely detrimental to itself.


I admit Norway isn't totally free of problems, but we at least avoid the level of brutality you describe without having to kill of the "subhumans". How do you think such policy is detrimental to our society?


Not detrimental to Norway, To the US.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
You have admitted that you'd be a victim even if armed. This is something that most Americans would certainly take issue with.


You live in an area where you claim you have to be prepared to fire a gun to protect the ones you love. That is being a victim.

How on earth does willing to fight for those you love equate to being a victim?
Or is permitting your wife/girlfriend to get repeatedly raped untill she goes catatonic a gesture of goodwill to who? "Oh I'm sorry honey, this gang wants to beat and rape you because they are the victims here and you're just letting them vent a little steam. Think of it as catharsis for their troubled souls."

Dude, you are seriously screwed up in the head. I hope whatever friends you have know that they cannot count on you in a tense situation.

Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once.. If you aren't willing to fight, bleed, kill or die for your loved ones...thy name be coward. (But at least you won't be a victim? Is that right?)
Hans

Dax wrote:
Don't tell me you imagine in some small way that criminals aren't responsible for their actions toward society since society created them to begin with?


That our ways of action are shaped by society does not mean we aren't responsible for our actions. That's reductionismn. I never said criminals had no choice. But the choices they make are influenced by social mechanisms.

Unless they are mentally ill, naturally. Which means they belong in a mental hospital, not in an electric chair.

Dax wrote:
How on earth does willing to fight for those you love equate to being a victim?


I never said willing to fight is being a victim. Being under constant threat in the society you live in is being a victim.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
I never said criminals had no choice. But the choices they make are influenced by social mechanisms.


That may be the case for many, but not all.

Dvarg wrote:
Unless they are mentally ill, naturally. Which means they belong in a mental hospital, not in an electric chair.


That would depend.
Dahmer convinced a judge he only needed psychiatric help after he was found guilty of fondling a 13 year old boy. The boy's younger brother was killed by him several years later. Had they instead shot him, they would have prevented him from murdering 16 others. (Not to mention preventing the necrophila and cannibalism.)

Dvarg wrote:
I never said willing to fight is being a victim. Being under constant threat in the society you live in is being a victim.


We see things differently. Being "prepared" for trouble and keeping vigilant is the price that I am willing to pay.

Your way of life in my opinion has made you complacent and sluggish to react to situations that call for immediate, decisive, and definitive action.
Hans

Dax wrote:
That is an unsubstantiated opinion.


What sort of evidence do you need?

Dax wrote:
Since Dahmer was mentioned earlier, please explain just how the hell he was created by society?


He must most likely have been insane.

In normal situations complex relations between individual habitus and social structures form the basis for an actor's choices. That does not mean he's not responsible for those actions or that violent actions are excusable. But it means such actions are possible to explain and therefore possible to prevent.

What is your explanation? I am very eager to know.

Dax wrote:
I hope whatever friends you have know that they cannot count on you in a tense situation.


Dvarg wrote:
I am willing to protect my friends and family. I do it by contributing to a society where they are in minimal danger.


It somehow appears more effective to prevent criminality from happening in the first place than your solution, which include killing the criminal after he has raped your mother (if you didn't happen to be there at the time). But if that's the price you're willing to pay, who am I to judge?
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
That is an unsubstantiated opinion.


What sort of evidence do you need?


I don't need any. (Psychiatry is like ethics and morality. Yoiu can't prove yours is any more correct that anyone else's. I recall having a similar real life conversation with someone who was studying pycho-therapy. He pretty much argued against the death penalty for the longest time. He shocked me one day when he flatly said that we don't have enough electric chairs. I didn't ask what experience he had gone through that changed his opinion. But I admit I was saddened by his statement.)

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Since Dahmer was mentioned earlier, please explain just how the hell he was created by society?


He must most likely have been insane.

In normal situations complex relations between individual habitus and social structures form the basis for an actor's choices. That does not mean he's not responsible for those actions or that violent actions are excusable. But it means such actions are possible to explain and therefore possible to prevent.

What is your explanation? I am very eager to know.


I have no problem seeing such executed. No chance of rehab and no chance of getting better and a good chance of creating more victims. (As he did)

Dvarg wrote:
It somehow appears more effective to prevent criminality from happening in the first place than your solution, which include killing the criminal after he has raped your mother (if you didn't happen to be there at the time). But if that's the price you're willing to pay, who am I to judge?

Prevention is certainly a nice policy to have. But when such fails (and our population is 10x that of Norway, so the odds are unfortnunately good that it will) we can lop off their heads with righteous zest! To quote an author.

Hmm...interesting. Norway's crime rate has been going up steadily:

Hans

Dax wrote:
I don't need any. (Psychiatry is like ethics and morality. Yoiu can't prove yours is any more correct that anyone else's.


Do you think the same about other fields of science, like medicine or physics, for example?

Dax wrote:
I have no problem seeing such executed. No chance of rehab and no chance of getting better and a good chance of creating more victims.


I was under the impression even the US doesn't execute mental patiens, but I might be wrong.

I'm still interrested in how you explain human behaviour.

Dax wrote:
Hmm...interesting. Norway's crime rate has been going up steadily


What kind of crime does this cover? Rape? Economic embezzlement? It's a great difference, naturally. However, the interresting question remains: Why? That is the reason I ask about your opinion on how you think human behaviour is shaped.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
I don't need any. (Psychiatry is like ethics and morality. Yoiu can't prove yours is any more correct that anyone else's.


Do you think the same about other fields of science, like medicine or physics, for example?


No.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
I have no problem seeing such executed. No chance of rehab and no chance of getting better and a good chance of creating more victims.


I'm still interrested in how you explain human behaviour.


And why does this need explaining?

Far too many make some sad attempt at delving into meaning of such aberrant behaviour as child rape and cannibalism , when such doesn't need it. It just needs removing.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Hmm...interesting. Norway's crime rate has been going up steadily


What kind of crime does this cover? Rape? Economic embezzlement? It's a great difference, naturally. However, the interresting question remains: Why? That is the reason I ask about your opinion on how you think human behaviour is shaped.


why ask why?

There is a direct link to increased population growth with increase in crime.
Hans

Dax wrote:
Far too many make some sad attempt at delving into meaning of such aberrant behaviour as child rape and cannibalism , when such doesn't need it. It just needs removing. Why ask why?


And this, I believe, might be the core of this discussion. I believe it is necessary (and also fascinating) to understand the reasons for a problem if we want to find a solution for it.

I don't understand what your perspective is. Do you believe people act randomly? Do you believe people act mechanically?

Even though you think it's irrelevant, I am honestly interrested in your view on why people do what they do.
rock_musicals

I think Dax has something against Scandinavia and its people.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Far too many make some sad attempt at delving into meaning of such aberrant behaviour as child rape and cannibalism , when such doesn't need it. It just needs removing. Why ask why?


And this, I believe, might be the core of this discussion. I believe it is necessary (and also fascinating) to understand the reasons for a problem if we want to find a solution for it.

I don't understand what your perspective is. Do you believe people act randomly? Do you believe people act mechanically?

Even though you think it's irrelevant, I am honestly interrested in your view on why people do what they do.


It's like delving into excrement. It stinks. Worse, the more you delve into it the lesser it seems to smell untill you may reach a point where you may tolerate it. And therein lies the danger.

Maybe they do it because Uncle Goober dangled them out of the window when a baby. Maybe they do it because they lacked the inner strength/willpower to overcome their own insecurities and fears. Maybe they can't find it within themselves to put the blame where it belongs on themselves for what they are, and instead blame society. (sound familiar?)
Maybe this, maybe that. Irrelevant to me. (Why did Dahmer do what he did? Who on earth cares? But maybe you can answer that question.)

If some...creature, decides to take out their frustration by creative torture (or other vile method), then I have no problem letting out my own inner sociopath. They made their deathbed and they can sleep on it.
Hans

Dax wrote:
It's like delving into excrement. It stinks.


This is the most unique discussion I've had. I have never met anyone who denies, or even questions the value of knowledge and understanding.

Knowledge and understanding have value in themselves. Knowledge and understanding is what we seek when we ask "why". I believe people tend to act rationally in correspondence of their knowlewdge and understanding of the world.

Dax wrote:
Worse, the more you delve into it the lesser it seems to smell untill you may reach a point where you may tolerate it. And therein lies the danger.


Have I ever even hinted that I "tolerate" those crimes you describe? I fully agree that they must be stopped. We just have different opinions on how to stop them.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
It's like delving into excrement. It stinks.


This is the most unique discussion I've had. I have never met anyone who denies, or even questions the value of knowledge and understanding.


This isn't about the value of knowledge. Moreso the value of experience.
If it smells like excrement, looks like excrement, it is probably what it is.
If you (and idiotic shrinks) wish to take it further I can provide the fork and knife and you can tell me how it tastes. I assure you the victims of such aberrant behaviour know the taste all too well.

Dvarg wrote:
Knowledge and understanding have value in themselves. Knowledge and understanding is what we seek when we ask "why". I believe people tend to act rationally in correspondence of their knowlewdge and understanding of the world.


Weasel words need to be avoided. Explain the prior example's rational behaviour and why he should have lived? (If nothing else this should prove entertaining in the way that an auto accident is entertaining. I just can't look away
Hans

Dax wrote:
If it smells like excrement, looks like excrement, it is probably what it is.


This discussion has without doubt expanded my horizon in unexpected directions.
Dax

*shrugs*

I knew you would be unable to answer the questions regarding my example.

Far too many imagine they know better and attempt to make policies for which they have little practical experience and thus have no business in doing.

Which brings this thread back to the original topic.

The ones who can judge Hussein are the Iraqi people.
Hans

Dax wrote:
I knew you would be unable to answer the questions regarding my example.


Is it Saddam Hussain's rational reasons you ask me to analyse? Of course I am unable to. I personally know almost nothing about cultural practises in Iraque, local systems of value, I know too little of the land's history and Saddam's personal history. There's even a chance he is mad. How do you expect me to even try to analyse his situation without such knowledge?

Even if I were capable of analysing his actions, that wouldn't make them less unacceptable, if that's what you believe I think.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
I knew you would be unable to answer the questions regarding my example.


Is it Saddam Hussain's rational reasons you ask me to analyse? Even if I were capable of analysing his actions, that wouldn't make them less unacceptable, if that's what you believe I think.


No.

My example was Dahmer.

Of course he is just one example. That link can be followed to numerous other examples.
Hans

Dax wrote:
My example was Dahmer.


Well, I already said I think
Dvarg wrote:
he must most likely have been insane,
some sort of psychopath, I guess. The traumas he appearantly went through as a child don't seem to have made his mental situation better.

Dax wrote:
Far too many imagine they know better and attempt to make policies for which they have little practical experience and thus have no business in doing.


Besides, practical experience is naturally crucial. It is essentially the same as empirical material, which is what knowledge an understanding is built on - knowledge and understanding that others can share later, even though they did not personally get the experience.
Dax

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
My example was Dahmer.


Well, I already said I think he most probably must have been insane, some sort of psychopath, I guess.


Among other things.

Dvarg wrote:
Dax wrote:
Far too many imagine they know better and attempt to make policies for which they have little practical experience and thus have no business in doing.


Besides, practical experience is naturally crucial. It is essentially the same as empirical material, which is what knowledge an understanding is built on - knowledge and understanding that others can share later, even though they did not personally get the experience.


One's past is immaterial to the crime.

A person such as Dahmer is put to death for what he did. Understanding need not go any further than looking at the victims.

I do find it of interest that you seem to have posted of far more empathy to such creatures of Dahmer's ilk than his victims.
Hans

Dax wrote:
One's past is immaterial to the crime.


Do you mean you believe Dahmer had commited those crimes anyway, even if he hadn't been insane (among other things)?

Dax wrote:
I do find it of interest that you seem to have posted of far more empathy to such creatures of Dahmer's ilk than his victims.


I didn't find it necessary to spell out that I am devestated on behalf of the victims, because I take it for granted that everybody that's not mentally disturbed reacts with nausea when they read things like that.
jcstar

Okay... so when is he going to die?

I prefer he be crucified, but beggars can't be choosers. Oh well... HANG 'EM HIGH!!!

Andy.
       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
Page 1 of 1