Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Best DP Method?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:04:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As many of you know, I am for the death penalty. However, apparently I'm a bit of an odd duck, in that I think lethal injection is NOT the best method--in fact it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This is one of MANY articles that show why: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com.... Personally, I actually support the idea of firing squads coming back into use. A series of shooters all shooting a target simultaneously is more humane than the drawn out and painful death that the lethal injection has been shown to cause.

I also think that, although potentially problematic, hanging is another method that is more reasonable than injection. Suffocation is possible--but this can be countered with accurate measurements of weight, neck girth, etc. to cause immediate unconsciousness.

But what do you think?

PS: As an aside, here's a funny video by the Onion: "Supreme Court Rules Death Penalty is Totally Badass." http://www.theonion.com...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:10:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why does it matter if lethal injection hurts? They're murderers. They've caused a hell of a lot more pain to others than lethal injection is going to give them.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:13:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:10:10 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
Why does it matter if lethal injection hurts? They're murderers. They've caused a hell of a lot more pain to others than lethal injection is going to give them.

I understand, but I'm speaking from the assumption that our society wants a umane method.

I also think that lethal injection is too subdued of a punishment as well. This is probably from my history in theatre, but I just love the dramatic finality of a hanging or firing squad. The lethal injection is a bit of a boring method.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:14:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But if you really want to be humane, I don't see why we can't shoot them up with propofol and then give them something fatal. If you're on propofol, you're not going to wake up for a good while.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:19:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
DP method. I came to this thread fully ready to discuss double penetration and the best ways to convince a girl to do double penetration. *sigh* something is wrong with me.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:22:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:19:20 PM, MarquisX wrote:
DP method. I came to this thread fully ready to discuss double penetration and the best ways to convince a girl to do double penetration. *sigh* something is wrong with me.

I thought he meant day phase.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:28:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:04:35 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
As many of you know, I am for the death penalty. However, apparently I'm a bit of an odd duck, in that I think lethal injection is NOT the best method--in fact it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This is one of MANY articles that show why: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com.... Personally, I actually support the idea of firing squads coming back into use. A series of shooters all shooting a target simultaneously is more humane than the drawn out and painful death that the lethal injection has been shown to cause.

Lethal injection has not been shown to be painful. What has been shown is that if the sedation is done wrong, it may then be painful. That is true of ANY death penalty method. If you mess up and do things wrong, it can be painful. If the firing squad hits the guy in the arms, gut and legs, it may take him a little while to die while in a lot of pain.


I also think that, although potentially problematic, hanging is another method that is more reasonable than injection. Suffocation is possible--but this can be countered with accurate measurements of weight, neck girth, etc. to cause immediate unconsciousness.

You cannot assume 100% accuracy, unless you are also willing to give 100% accuracy to lethal injection.


But what do you think?

I think a C-4 collar has the least likely chance of failure. Though personally, I think that they should be guinnie pigs for medical experiments. Like testing new medicines that might cure cancer, or potentially cause your liver to explode (that is something that needs to be tested, but won't get a lot of volunteers), and what not.

Once you are convicted to death, you've lost your right to life, so everything else is just meaningless.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:35:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I actually agree with OreEle here. They don't have any rights, so we might as well make good use of them. If we're able to cure cancer through testing on convicted murderers, it would eliminate any possible controversy surrounding the issue.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:28:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


I think a C-4 collar has the least likely chance of failure. Though personally, I think that they should be guinnie pigs for medical experiments. Like testing new medicines that might cure cancer, or potentially cause your liver to explode (that is something that needs to be tested, but won't get a lot of volunteers), and what not.

Once you are convicted to death, you've lost your right to life, so everything else is just meaningless.

Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:04:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:28:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


I think a C-4 collar has the least likely chance of failure. Though personally, I think that they should be guinnie pigs for medical experiments. Like testing new medicines that might cure cancer, or potentially cause your liver to explode (that is something that needs to be tested, but won't get a lot of volunteers), and what not.

Once you are convicted to death, you've lost your right to life, so everything else is just meaningless.

Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

You've just strawmanned my argument. No where did I say that this was to be done as torture or revenge or anger or hatred, you just added that in so you could attack it.

Da Vinci dissected human bodies, even though at the time, it was considered a great sin and highly disrespectful to the dead.

But through his efforts he learned a lot about how the human body functions and how to heal various injuries. He was motivated by a desire to learn and make the world a better place, not anger, not disrespect, not some sick desire.

http://dsc.discovery.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:10:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:04:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:28:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


I think a C-4 collar has the least likely chance of failure. Though personally, I think that they should be guinnie pigs for medical experiments. Like testing new medicines that might cure cancer, or potentially cause your liver to explode (that is something that needs to be tested, but won't get a lot of volunteers), and what not.

Once you are convicted to death, you've lost your right to life, so everything else is just meaningless.

Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

You've just strawmanned my argument. No where did I say that this was to be done as torture or revenge or anger or hatred, you just added that in so you could attack it.

Da Vinci dissected human bodies, even though at the time, it was considered a great sin and highly disrespectful to the dead.

But through his efforts he learned a lot about how the human body functions and how to heal various injuries. He was motivated by a desire to learn and make the world a better place, not anger, not disrespect, not some sick desire.

http://dsc.discovery.com...

I didn't strawman your argument. I showed you what it was, behind the lofty ruse of medical advancement. Medical testing essentially implies that there is no certainty on the results, and there is a chance the subject could feel significant pain in the process, i.e " ...cause your liver to explode." How is this not, in actuality, torture? How is this not inhumane?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:10:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:04:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:28:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


I think a C-4 collar has the least likely chance of failure. Though personally, I think that they should be guinnie pigs for medical experiments. Like testing new medicines that might cure cancer, or potentially cause your liver to explode (that is something that needs to be tested, but won't get a lot of volunteers), and what not.

Once you are convicted to death, you've lost your right to life, so everything else is just meaningless.

Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

You've just strawmanned my argument. No where did I say that this was to be done as torture or revenge or anger or hatred, you just added that in so you could attack it.

Da Vinci dissected human bodies, even though at the time, it was considered a great sin and highly disrespectful to the dead.

But through his efforts he learned a lot about how the human body functions and how to heal various injuries. He was motivated by a desire to learn and make the world a better place, not anger, not disrespect, not some sick desire.

http://dsc.discovery.com...

Whether a convicted criminal dies by gas chamber, hanging, a bullet to the head, lethal injection, or medical experiments, the ultimate result is... 1 dead human. None of the options change that fact, no amount of sugar coating of "humane treatment" will change that, so, you might as well make the most of that death. That can range from medical experiments, harvesting organs to save other people's lives, anything really.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:12:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:10:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:04:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:28:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


I think a C-4 collar has the least likely chance of failure. Though personally, I think that they should be guinnie pigs for medical experiments. Like testing new medicines that might cure cancer, or potentially cause your liver to explode (that is something that needs to be tested, but won't get a lot of volunteers), and what not.

Once you are convicted to death, you've lost your right to life, so everything else is just meaningless.

Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

You've just strawmanned my argument. No where did I say that this was to be done as torture or revenge or anger or hatred, you just added that in so you could attack it.

Da Vinci dissected human bodies, even though at the time, it was considered a great sin and highly disrespectful to the dead.

But through his efforts he learned a lot about how the human body functions and how to heal various injuries. He was motivated by a desire to learn and make the world a better place, not anger, not disrespect, not some sick desire.

http://dsc.discovery.com...

I didn't strawman your argument. I showed you what it was, behind the lofty ruse of medical advancement. Medical testing essentially implies that there is no certainty on the results, and there is a chance the subject could feel significant pain in the process, i.e " ...cause your liver to explode." How is this not, in actuality, torture? How is this not inhumane?

You strawmanned by assuming a hidden motive. It is no more torture than accidently slamming your fingers in a door is torture. It is not the intention to cause their liver to explode, that is an undesired side effect. Accidental pain =/= torture.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:16:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

They are not humans. They are monsters.

But to be extra-safe, we could restrict medical testing to those who had a murder +1. Like, if they raped and murdered the victim, or if they tortured the victim before killing them, or if they killed multiple people. They obviously don't deserve humane treatment, so we shouldn't give it to them.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:17:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:10:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Whether a convicted criminal dies by gas chamber, hanging, a bullet to the head, lethal injection, or medical experiments, the ultimate result is... 1 dead human. None of the options change that fact, no amount of sugar coating of "humane treatment" will change that, so, you might as well make the most of that death. That can range from medical experiments, harvesting organs to save other people's lives, anything really.

Not true. There is NOTHING, nothing in the world a human being could possibly do to deserve to suffer before his death, even if he caused suffering unto others. Justice is by nature a virtuous and humane form of retribution, it cannot then condone something that is as radically cruel as medical testing. They should leave the world in peace (all humans are owed this death), not in the volatile and violent variability of some undefined drug.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:22:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:17:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:10:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Whether a convicted criminal dies by gas chamber, hanging, a bullet to the head, lethal injection, or medical experiments, the ultimate result is... 1 dead human. None of the options change that fact, no amount of sugar coating of "humane treatment" will change that, so, you might as well make the most of that death. That can range from medical experiments, harvesting organs to save other people's lives, anything really.

Not true. There is NOTHING, nothing in the world a human being could possibly do to deserve to suffer before his death, even if he caused suffering unto others. Justice is by nature a virtuous and humane form of retribution, it cannot then condone something that is as radically cruel as medical testing. They should leave the world in peace (all humans are owed this death), not in the volatile and violent variability of some undefined drug.

You and I have a very different moral code, it would appear. There is plenty people can do to deserve to suffer, whether before their death or simply in life in general. How can one say that no one deserves to suffer before their death, but hold that it is okay for people to suffer in life? Or do you think that no one anywhere should ever suffer for any reason?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:16:14 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

They are not humans. They are monsters.

But to be extra-safe, we could restrict medical testing to those who had a murder +1. Like, if they raped and murdered the victim, or if they tortured the victim before killing them, or if they killed multiple people. They obviously don't deserve humane treatment, so we shouldn't give it to them.

Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:27:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:22:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:17:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:10:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Whether a convicted criminal dies by gas chamber, hanging, a bullet to the head, lethal injection, or medical experiments, the ultimate result is... 1 dead human. None of the options change that fact, no amount of sugar coating of "humane treatment" will change that, so, you might as well make the most of that death. That can range from medical experiments, harvesting organs to save other people's lives, anything really.

Not true. There is NOTHING, nothing in the world a human being could possibly do to deserve to suffer before his death, even if he caused suffering unto others. Justice is by nature a virtuous and humane form of retribution, it cannot then condone something that is as radically cruel as medical testing. They should leave the world in peace (all humans are owed this death), not in the volatile and violent variability of some undefined drug.

You and I have a very different moral code, it would appear. There is plenty people can do to deserve to suffer, whether before their death or simply in life in general. How can one say that no one deserves to suffer before their death, but hold that it is okay for people to suffer in life? Or do you think that no one anywhere should ever suffer for any reason?

The last one, yes. No one deserves to suffer. If suffering occurs, let it not be intentionally, OR by intentional "HIGH RISK." Of course I use the term suffering in a very strict range of meaning; physical suffering and pain is what I mean. What does anything gain when one suffers? No one gains anything. No one.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:32:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?

Not really. If someone killed my parents, I wouldn't view them as a real human being. If I killed someone else's mother, I wouldn't expect them to consider me one either. As some guy said whose name escapes me, when you kill someone, you don't just kill them. You destroy everything they will ever become. Any possible relationships they might build, any kids they might have had, any contributions to society they might have created. These are all thrown down the drain when somebody is murdered. I don't consider somebody who would commit such a crime to be worthy of humane treatment, let alone somebody who killed multiples.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:33:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:28:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


I think a C-4 collar has the least likely chance of failure. Though personally, I think that they should be guinnie pigs for medical experiments. Like testing new medicines that might cure cancer, or potentially cause your liver to explode (that is something that needs to be tested, but won't get a lot of volunteers), and what not.

Once you are convicted to death, you've lost your right to life, so everything else is just meaningless.

Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

Oh 000ike, trying to equate medical testing=torture. Perhaps the fact that both serve different functions is one distinguishing factor...the other in how it's handled. Determining what is torture out of its emotional basis (hate and anger: "Torture is only done out of hatred and anger") is a bit farfetched, especially, if I may ask, if medical testing is done out of "hatred and anger"...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:34:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:32:38 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?

Not really. If someone killed my parents, I wouldn't view them as a real human being. If I killed someone else's mother, I wouldn't expect them to consider me one either. As some guy said whose name escapes me, when you kill someone, you don't just kill them. You destroy everything they will ever become. Any possible relationships they might build, any kids they might have had, any contributions to society they might have created. These are all thrown down the drain when somebody is murdered. I don't consider somebody who would commit such a crime to be worthy of humane treatment, let alone somebody who killed multiples.

Justice corrupted by anger is Injustice.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:43:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:34:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:32:38 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?

Not really. If someone killed my parents, I wouldn't view them as a real human being. If I killed someone else's mother, I wouldn't expect them to consider me one either. As some guy said whose name escapes me, when you kill someone, you don't just kill them. You destroy everything they will ever become. Any possible relationships they might build, any kids they might have had, any contributions to society they might have created. These are all thrown down the drain when somebody is murdered. I don't consider somebody who would commit such a crime to be worthy of humane treatment, let alone somebody who killed multiples.

Justice corrupted by anger is Injustice.

Only if your moral system believes that anger is immoral.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:44:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:27:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:22:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:17:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:10:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Whether a convicted criminal dies by gas chamber, hanging, a bullet to the head, lethal injection, or medical experiments, the ultimate result is... 1 dead human. None of the options change that fact, no amount of sugar coating of "humane treatment" will change that, so, you might as well make the most of that death. That can range from medical experiments, harvesting organs to save other people's lives, anything really.

Not true. There is NOTHING, nothing in the world a human being could possibly do to deserve to suffer before his death, even if he caused suffering unto others. Justice is by nature a virtuous and humane form of retribution, it cannot then condone something that is as radically cruel as medical testing. They should leave the world in peace (all humans are owed this death), not in the volatile and violent variability of some undefined drug.

You and I have a very different moral code, it would appear. There is plenty people can do to deserve to suffer, whether before their death or simply in life in general. How can one say that no one deserves to suffer before their death, but hold that it is okay for people to suffer in life? Or do you think that no one anywhere should ever suffer for any reason?

The last one, yes. No one deserves to suffer. If suffering occurs, let it not be intentionally, OR by intentional "HIGH RISK." Of course I use the term suffering in a very strict range of meaning; physical suffering and pain is what I mean. What does anything gain when one suffers? No one gains anything. No one.

Why do you seperate out physical suffering from Mental suffering, or emotional suffering, or any other form?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:50:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:44:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Why do you seperate out physical suffering from Mental suffering, or emotional suffering, or any other form?

The other forms don't in a defined state. What causes emotional suffering for one, may not cause the same for others. There is no way to calculate or determine which action is universally emotionally damaging, because there is no such thing. Furthermore, other forms of pain can be retarded by will. Pain is involuntary imposition of suffering that cannot be retarded or controlled. It exists in a physically powerful state that simply cannot be ignored, lessened, or stopped.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:04:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:50:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:44:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Why do you seperate out physical suffering from Mental suffering, or emotional suffering, or any other form?

The other forms don't in a defined state. What causes emotional suffering for one, may not cause the same for others. There is no way to calculate or determine which action is universally emotionally damaging, because there is no such thing. Furthermore, other forms of pain can be retarded by will. Pain is involuntary imposition of suffering that cannot be retarded or controlled. It exists in a physically powerful state that simply cannot be ignored, lessened, or stopped.

Yes it can, to some people, flicking their ears can be very painful, while for others, it is not. Different things cause pain to different people.

For example, turn to the video. This guy appears to only be in a little pain. he seems more like sreaming "Dude, WTF?!"

There are also videos of people breaking their arm and not experiencing any pain (only of my favorites is a kids breaks his arm and calls his mom to ask her to take him to the hospital). There are also dislocated finger things and what nots.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:06:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:34:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:32:38 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?

Not really. If someone killed my parents, I wouldn't view them as a real human being. If I killed someone else's mother, I wouldn't expect them to consider me one either. As some guy said whose name escapes me, when you kill someone, you don't just kill them. You destroy everything they will ever become. Any possible relationships they might build, any kids they might have had, any contributions to society they might have created. These are all thrown down the drain when somebody is murdered. I don't consider somebody who would commit such a crime to be worthy of humane treatment, let alone somebody who killed multiples.

Justice corrupted by anger is Injustice.

The point of that post is that murderers don't deserve humane treatment becuase of the magnitude of the crime they committed. Somehow, you interpreted this as anger. I'd like to know where anger was ever mentioned or even implied in that post.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:10:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:06:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:34:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:32:38 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?

Not really. If someone killed my parents, I wouldn't view them as a real human being. If I killed someone else's mother, I wouldn't expect them to consider me one either. As some guy said whose name escapes me, when you kill someone, you don't just kill them. You destroy everything they will ever become. Any possible relationships they might build, any kids they might have had, any contributions to society they might have created. These are all thrown down the drain when somebody is murdered. I don't consider somebody who would commit such a crime to be worthy of humane treatment, let alone somebody who killed multiples.

Justice corrupted by anger is Injustice.

The point of that post is that murderers don't deserve humane treatment becuase of the magnitude of the crime they committed. Somehow, you interpreted this as anger. I'd like to know where anger was ever mentioned or even implied in that post.

Well, perhaps you know not the power of your words. For most people reading, "I wouldn't view them as a real human being" sounds like anger. If that statement has no anger or resentment in it, then I'd like to know why a murderer is no longer human.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:15:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:10:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:06:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:34:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:32:38 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?

Not really. If someone killed my parents, I wouldn't view them as a real human being. If I killed someone else's mother, I wouldn't expect them to consider me one either. As some guy said whose name escapes me, when you kill someone, you don't just kill them. You destroy everything they will ever become. Any possible relationships they might build, any kids they might have had, any contributions to society they might have created. These are all thrown down the drain when somebody is murdered. I don't consider somebody who would commit such a crime to be worthy of humane treatment, let alone somebody who killed multiples.

Justice corrupted by anger is Injustice.

The point of that post is that murderers don't deserve humane treatment becuase of the magnitude of the crime they committed. Somehow, you interpreted this as anger. I'd like to know where anger was ever mentioned or even implied in that post.

Well, perhaps you know not the power of your words. For most people reading, "I wouldn't view them as a real human being" sounds like anger. If that statement has no anger or resentment in it, then I'd like to know why a murderer is no longer human.

If I said "I wouldn't view them as a real human being" and nothing else, then yes, it might be viewed as anger. However, immediately afterwards, I explained why I wouldn't view them as a human, due to the magnitude and nature of the crime. Magnitude of the crime =/= anger.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:18:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:15:25 PM, BlackVoid wrote:

If I said "I wouldn't view them as a real human being" and nothing else, then yes, it might be viewed as anger. However, immediately afterwards, I explained why I wouldn't view them as a human, due to the magnitude and nature of the crime. Magnitude of the crime =/= anger.

Why does high magnitude crime dehumanize a criminal? I inferred that your reasoning was anger, but you denied it and still have not given me a reason.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:22:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:26:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:16:14 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:58:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can we have some respect for the fact that these are still human beings? Medical testing is a term that masks the reality of the deed, which is ultimately torture. Torture is done only out of hatred and anger, and used as a way to feed and satiate a sick or confused person's desire to see someone suffer. That isn't justice, that is inhumanity and madness.

They are not humans. They are monsters.

But to be extra-safe, we could restrict medical testing to those who had a murder +1. Like, if they raped and murdered the victim, or if they tortured the victim before killing them, or if they killed multiple people. They obviously don't deserve humane treatment, so we shouldn't give it to them.

Yikes. Bit strong, don't you think?

A bit strong? In an earlier post, didn't you criticize lethal injection as not being a theatrical enough means of killing a man?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...