|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 21, 2011 3:32:34 GMT -5
Oh I'm clearly seeing that you find that someone executing someone else just cause they can is fine and dandy.
Ironbite-your opinion means nothing to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 3:35:03 GMT -5
Oh I'm clearly seeing that you find that someone executing someone else just cause they can is fine and dandy. Ironbite-your opinion means nothing to me. ...So stop responding? Art Vandelay-That's generally what you do when you don't care about someone's opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 3:49:51 GMT -5
Assuming you're not taking the piss, what's your reasoning behind that? I'm genuinely curious. The way I see it, as long as the murderin' is confined to burglars and such then I don't really think it deserves jail time. Yes, it would be better not to kill them if it can at all be avoided, but if they are killed by an irate store owner, then no big loss really. That's just my subjective opinion though. You've just stated that you don't believe this act is such a big deal as to warrant jail time. I didn't ask you if you *want* them to start skipping the judge and jury but if you would show them the same clemency given their position of public trust and potential for abuse. I then ran a comparison for how famously horrible people waved off the notion what they were doing was a monstrous felony and deserved to be prosecuted as such simply because their choice of victim was 'acceptable' to their views. The question - exactly as it was worded - still stands. The dumb punk was already down, Ersland chose to kill him while he was helpless. Had the headshot been fatal or the assailant still mobile and doing anything as vaugely threatening as running towards somebody when the killing barrage came we would be shrugging it off right now. But that's not how it went down, the kid was pretty much a hostage in the minutes leading to his death, he might as well have been hancuffed or hogtied. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 4:12:10 GMT -5
You've just stated that you don't believe this act is such a big deal as to warrant jail time. I didn't ask you if you *want* them to start skipping the judge and jury but if you would show them the same clemency given their position of public trust and potential for abuse. I then ran a comparison for how famously horrible people waved off the notion what they were doing was a monstrous felony and deserved to be prosecuted as such simply because their choice of victim was 'acceptable' to their views. The question - exactly as it was worded - still stands. I really don't see what it has to do with the topic at hand, but no, I don't think the police should do that. I believe seeing as they're payed to enforce the law, they can lose their job for breaking even minor ones such as littering. So yeah, cops should definitely not break the law, regardless of whether or not the consequences include jail time. As for the comparison, well, indiscriminate killings for racial or religious reasons are quite a far cry from killing a robber (except for WBC, who never killed anyone in the first place). Not only that, the law also happens to agree with me that not all murders are equal. It's why legally murder charges are tiered and there are other classifications like hate crime and crime of passion, which carry different sentences (and for good reason). I'm not saying that it agrees with my views of Ersland, just saying that your assumption that killing a burglar is the same as hanging black people for funsies quite frankly rather silly. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 5:31:52 GMT -5
Making lives cheap is the first step to making them cheap entertainment. I included WBC because all life is cheap to them, they merely wash their hands of moral implications by remaining cheerleaders to bloodbaths.
The KKK started out telling itself it was punishing the "crimes" of Jews and ex-slaves, and a good chunk of that crowd still believes it today. When the value of life becomes tiered and the meaning of murder flexible you'll stop one day and find bodies at your feet. You're going to look around you and see your neighbours killing anyone that sleights them: shoplifters, vandals, and drunks, all with the flippant disregard of Al Capone because the people on their knees and begging for their lives are acceptable targets to them. When that day comes are you going to realize you've boiled crime and morality down to a matter of personal relativity and power or are you going to shrug at the corpses and just take comfort in the idea that they've got it coming and nobody with rights is getting hurt? Then you'll walk down the street, not even paying attention as some guy gets beaten to death in an alley. Some drunk, probably picked a fight. You don't know. You certainly don't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 5:37:42 GMT -5
Would you like some teflon to go with that slippery slope of yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 5:41:29 GMT -5
Funny, that's the question we've been asking you, whether you realize the legitimacy of it or not. Your answers remind me of about a dozen headlines that start with the phrase "Tragedy Strikes!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 5:47:36 GMT -5
Err, you do realise that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 5:55:43 GMT -5
It's only a fallacy to minds that don't work on the level of a sociopath. Devaluing life has an actual track record of growing into a casual disregard for the lives of others so long as you believe they are beneath you to the point where genocide doesn't make you blink. (Blacks and Jews to the KKK, Hutu's to the Tutsi, every living thing to Fred Phelps, slaves to their owners, and on a more identifiable level anything that stands between a mugger and his score.) What we're probing to see is if you're a sociopath. Since you're of the mind that anyone who poses a momentary threat to you becomes no big deal to kill even when they no longer pose a threat to you your mindset may fall into this category. To the sane person, the slope doesn't even exist. There's only the stark and easily identifiable edge overlooking the realm of madness to leap into. To someone with a sociopathic mentality? Suddenly there is a slope and you're sliding to crazyville. I joke about my sanity, but yours is downright worrisome
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 6:08:52 GMT -5
Remember what I said about reading my posts before replying? Yeah, you should do it more often. Since you obviously missed it way back in the uncharted wilderness of page 9 of this thread, here's my response to the sociopath hypothesis as our good friend Wikipedia describes it.Now, direct question for you (in case you're unfamiliar, you must provide some sort of answer or risk eternal damnation from our mods, as per the board rules), do you assume to both know me well enough IRL and have the necessary background in psychology to make such a claim, or are you just using "sociopath" in the sense of "anyone whose philosophy deviates enough from my own" rather than its actual definition in order to make an emotional argument? I'm not trying to be facetious here, I'm genuinely curious considering you don't seem to understand something as simple as a slippery slope fallacy. Which brings me to my next point. If you'd have read the wiki article, you'd have learned this already, but I'll write it out just for you. I know, I'm just balls-to-the-wall awesome like that, think nothing of it, really. The only time a slippery slope argument is not a fallacy is when there's objective proof that the transition you describe is inevitable. You seem to claim that your slippery slope argument is not fallacious, yet you've presented no such proof. Well, hop to it, I trust do you still wish to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 6:28:06 GMT -5
I'm using the dictionary definition, which you've highlighted for our convenience and seem unaware that much of what you've said appears to fit the criteria.
You have, in so many words, just stated that the commision of a crime (armed robbery in this case) all but negates the rights of the one commiting said crime reducing the value of their lives and consequences of their death to nil.
In the pharmacy example and the situations I've put forward it was no longer a matter of a threat being posed, you simply considered the criminal unfit to live. You went as far as state flatly it was murder, but a murder of an almost inconsequential degree that warrants no jail time. "The way I see it, as long as the murderin' is confined to burglars and such then I don't really think it deserves jail time" was your exact words. You never even specified that they had to be dangerous, and just said it was "No big deal, really." I'd classify that as a pervasive disregard of rights. Once they cross that line, it appears there's no going back with you. They become a sub-class of humanity.
Just about forgot the slippery slope mention. For a sociopath the slide into total disregard, possibly open contempt, for those considered beneath or useless to them is actually an inevitability for the very nature of sociopathy. While sociopathic behavior can be instilled at a societal level, seen in ethnic cleansings and the like, it can be reconsidered. There's a historical tendency for it to snowball to the point where society collapses and forces the re-evalutation but there's always room to change. However an honest-to-goodness sociopathic individual is another matter entirely. They aren't merely accustomed to seeing the world in a cold light of variably weighted moral dilemmas, they are mentally incapable of seeing a fault to their logic and think there's something extremely wrong with people that don't share the same view. They are literally unable to care about a situation they feel they have no stake in. While they might not go commit murder themselves, they sure ain't going to cry when somebody else they don't really give a hoot about dies horribly. Even if it's right in front of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 6:30:47 GMT -5
You have not answered the question (or at least 2/3 of it). Please do, lest the modly gods smite you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 6:57:31 GMT -5
If you don't like it, then feel free to hold whatever views of your own you wish on the matter.  I think they are. Their view is something to the effect of "you're fucking insane." |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 7:04:40 GMT -5
Err, you do realise that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, right? "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy because people use it to go from "blacks marrying" to "everyone screwing sheep for fun." It's not a slippery slope to say that drunk driving leads to fatlalities. It's also not a slippery slope to indicate an actual pattern of events. The problem with the fallacy cam be summed up neatly in a handful of words: "When will it stop?" It's a forward proposal, usually an irrational one, not one that actively looks back at events and defines them based on a relevant pattern. And I do mean relevant, not a "Hitler ate sugar" argument. Even if one defines it as a slippery slope argument by some rules lawyering bull, the real danger is in the impractical possible future assertions based on specious evidence. Again, gay marriage will lead to people boinking trees. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 7:09:29 GMT -5
Oh. I took it as the slippery slope into madness with a spreading facet of a singular mentality when I used the term rather than a ridiculous chain of impossibly related cause and effect though I suppose hypothetically applying that mindset to the people around Art Vandelay and asking what their reaction would be to seeing that level of cold-bloodedness acted out by others in an earlier post could be seen as that.
Um, oops my bad?
|
|
