Death Penalty in Bali

Status
Not open for further replies.
big soft moose said:
I was reffering to london headshots assertion that we (I assume he means the uk) don't kill for ANY reason, in order to maintain our supposed position of moral leadership in the world.

that said the difference is tenuous

if you are okay with killing in defence of your family, its not a long step to killing in defence of society in general (after all why should a strangers family be of any less value)

and if we are okay with killing in the defence of any innocent person , why should we not kill nonces, rapists, murderers, drug smugglers etc , to stop them posing a risk to the innocent in society ?
Click to expand...

No, that is not the statement I made. I am against capital punishment, not the act of killing.

To clarify: I am against the notion of a government having the power to control the mortal fate of any human being. It's morally and ethically unsound, thus, I do not support it.

Killing in defence of yourself or an innocent party, or even for the ethically tenuous 'greater good' is a completely different story. As long as you aren't a government.

Also, I don't mean the UK. I don't care about borders, we are all one people. Over there is over here. I don't support any government's use of capital punishment.
 
Last edited:
By the way, nobody is really arguing against the completely lazy, asinine and useless statement of "their country, their rules". Even when I did, I was just mocking.

It's completely pointless to make such a statement, because nobody is denying that they are in a position to enforce their rules, the argument is that their rules are excessively cruel.

My argument is that the rules are excessively cruel, completely counter intuitive, and they empower the state with a level of control that nobody can wield justly.
 
London Headshots said:
By the way, nobody is really arguing against the completely lazy, asinine and useless statement of "their country, their rules". Even when I did, I was just mocking.

It's completely pointless to make such a statement, because nobody is denying that they are in a position to enforce their rules, the argument is that their rules are excessively cruel.

My argument is that the rules are excessively cruel, completely counter intuitive, and they empower the state with a level of control that nobody can wield justly.
Click to expand...

The rules are only excessively cruel if broken. If not broken, they're just rules.
 
fracster said:
Can you imagine the uproar here if some "Johnny Foreigner" tried to tell us that we should change our judicial system and our punishments dealt out were wrong?
.
Click to expand...

They do, it's called the EU and its blasted human rights act giving criminals more rights than the victim.
 
cambsno said:
They do, it's called the EU and its blasted human rights act giving criminals more rights than the victim.
Click to expand...

HOUSE!
 
[Godwin][/Godwin]

What would He have done?
 
London Headshots said:
By the way, nobody is really arguing against the completely lazy, asinine and useless statement of "their country, their rules". Even when I did, I was just mocking.
Click to expand...

It isn`t any of those, it is a simple fact. If one does not like the laws or culture of a country, then one should not subject oneself to them or if one does, one should not moan if one breaks their rules and get caught.

Your style of posting is arrogant,condescending and downright rude.

Being self opinionated is fine, but at least have the common decency to accept that others may have different opinions.Your ignore list must be of biblical proportions.
 
fracster said:
It isn`t any of those, it is a simple fact. If one does not like the laws or culture of a country, then one should not subject oneself to them or if one does, one should not moan if one breaks their rules and get caught.

Your style of posting is arrogant,condescending and downright rude.

Being self opinionated is fine, but at least have the common decency to accept that others may have different opinions.Your ignore list must be of biblical proportions.
Click to expand...

You'll be on it now too haha
 
London Headshots said:
haha, I love this.

Where do you fit into this image of Badass Britain, Ruth, aged 43?

You're a middle aged woman - you're statistically the least threatening demographic of adult, yet you're the most vocal in your support of state violence.

Guaranteed, if someone put the pistol in your hands you'd **** your pants.
Click to expand...

Blimey, that's all you've got now? Personal jibes?
Well done, by the way, for working out my age. Was it my screen name that gave it away? Your calculator must have been on fire. :geek:
When you have more to add that is actually of some value, please do feel free to let us know. I shan't be holding my breath.
 
viv1969 said:
Blimey, that's all you've got now? Personal jibes?
Well done, by the way, for working out my age. Was it my screen name that gave it away? Your calculator must have been on fire. :geek:
When you have more to add that is actually of some value, please do feel free to let us know. I shan't be holding my breath.
Click to expand...

:D
 
this thread was locked a moment ago - wtf
 
I had a momentary change of heart and thought I'd give everyone a last chance to keep the debate healthy without descending into the usual bickering and insulting behaviour.
 
London Headshots said:
The reason why we have the society we do is because we don't kill, under ANY circumstances. .
Click to expand...

London Headshots said:
No, that is not the statement I made. I am against capital punishment, not the act of killing.
Click to expand...

I love consistency - however in respect of kellies post i'd suggest we don't go further into that and agree to disagree and return to the case at hand
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
It isn`t any of those, it is a simple fact. If one does not like the laws or culture of a country, then one should not subject oneself to them or if one does, one should not moan if one breaks their rules and get caught.

Your style of posting is arrogant,condescending and downright rude.

Being self opinionated is fine, but at least have the common decency to accept that others may have different opinions.Your ignore list must be of biblical proportions.
Click to expand...

What isn't any of those, and what is a simple fact? What are you talking about? You've quoted a tiny portion of my post that has no relevance to that sentence.

If the best you can do is simply repeat the same old tired argument about it being 'their country, their rules', then I'm not surprised that you would have to flesh your point out with an irrelevant ad hominem. It means you read my post and completely failed to understand it.
 
no it means he didnt agree that you were correct :bang:

I understand your view point and respect your right to hold it and indeed to espouse it - that doesnt however mean that I or Ade or anyone else is compelled to agree with it.

perhaps you could explain why a soveriegn state doesnt have the right to make laws within its own boundaries ?
 
viv1969 said:
Blimey, that's all you've got now? Personal jibes?
Well done, by the way, for working out my age. Was it my screen name that gave it away? Your calculator must have been on fire. :geek:
When you have more to add that is actually of some value, please do feel free to let us know. I shan't be holding my breath.
Click to expand...

It's a personal jibe to point out your age and your demographic? You think I was saying that to insult you? Please...

I'm outlining the ridiculousness of a middle-aged woman sitting comfortably in picturesque Kent taking about how Britain needs to let the world know it can't be "****ed with".

Who is going to be letting everyone know? You? Gonna do it in between posting hundreds of threads on a photography forum? Gonna put down your camera for a bit and go and bust some heads? Got an idea for some state sanctioned act of violence to let them world know that we're ready to wreck ***** for...some...reason.

I'm guessing you want someone to do it for you. You want to sponsor whatever group is capable of sending out some peculiar message to the other 200+ countries on planet earth that we, the United Kingdom, can't be "****ed with".

And at what? Basketball? Chess? Let everyone know that we will totally destroy anyone at naughts and crosses?

This is an argument about the death penalty in Bali and the moral implications of capital punishment. What does Britain being this mighty nation that can't be "****ed with" have to do with ANYTHING?

I really cannot stand jingoism in any form. It's so... boring.
 
big soft moose said:
I love consistency - however in respect of kellies post i'd suggest we don't go further into that and agree to disagree and return to the case at hand
Click to expand...

OK, I apologise for being less than consistent in that reply, I should've made it more readable. I was still referring to the government in that instance.

My argument, I'll repeat again, is that a government should not have any role in the decision over whether to take someone's life as a punishment.

For ANY reason.
 
London Headshots said:
OK, I apologise for being less than consistent in that reply, I should've made it more readable. I was still referring to the government in that instance.

My argument, I'll repeat again, is that a government should not have any role in the decision over whether to take someone's life as a punishment.

For ANY reason.
Click to expand...

so what about warfare ? (and i'm not talking about acting as an aggressor - what about a country that is attacked defending itself ? )
 
big soft moose said:
no it means he didnt agree that you were correct :bang:

I understand your view point and respect your right to hold it and indeed to espouse it - that doesnt however mean that I or Ade or anyone else is compelled to agree with it.

perhaps you could explain why a soveriegn state doesnt have the right to make laws within its own boundaries ?
Click to expand...

Again, you're still repeating "their country, their rules", for some reason, despite the fact that my post on page 10 explained why that wasn't the issue.

Once again, I think this is the third time - a country is perfectly entitled to make its own rules. It can literally make any rule it wants, even crazy ones like 'it's illegal to not be painted red'. That entitlement does not automatically mean it's ethical or moral.

One of the rules in North Korea is that criminals sent to the concentration camps, depending on the severity of their crime, will also have other generations of their family sent with them.

They are entitled to make that rule, but does that make it OK? Is it right that a man convicted of theft in Chongjin will be sent to a concentration camp and that the generations above and below him will be sent, too?

So again, the argument that a country is entitled to make its own rules does not mean the rules it makes must be respected.

It means they must be respected if you're IN the country, but we're on an internet forum having a dicussion ABOUT their rules.

Again - NOBODY, or at least, not me, is saying that if you're in their country, you don't have to respect their rules.
 
London Headshots said:
This is an argument about the death penalty in Bali and the moral implications of capital punishment. What does Britain being this mighty nation that can't be "****ed with" have to do with ANYTHING?
.
Click to expand...

wait a minuite - it was you who was talking about the west being the moral leader of the world , and about us being one people.

if you subscribe to the view that borders are irrelevant then ruths assertion is relevant to how the 'one people' deal with drug smugglers - ie they are let know that actions have consequences.
 
big soft moose said:
so what about warfare ? (and i'm not talking about acting as an aggressor - what about a country that is attacked defending itself ? )
Click to expand...

I like you BSM, but it's getting a bit tiresome explaining this again and again. This will also be the third time I've said that self defence is a different argument from capital punishment.

This argument is about capital punishment. I'm going to write a sentence that explains capital punishment, and implore you to just assume anything NOT covered by it, is fair game for killing:

"We have some specific laws in this country, that, if broken, are punishable by death".

That's it. That has nothing to do with warfare or self defence, or acts of aggression of any kind.

If someone comes in your home and threatens the lives of your loved ones, you're fully entitled, in my opinion, to use whatever force necessary to protect them. The same way a government is MANDATED to use whatever force necessary to protect its inhabitants from foreign and domestic enemies.
 
London Headshots said:
Again, you're still repeating "their country, their rules", for some reason, despite the fact that my post on page 10 explained why that wasn't the issue.

Once again, I think this is the third time - a country is perfectly entitled to make its own rules. It can literally make any rule it wants, even crazy ones like 'it's illegal to not be painted red'. That entitlement does not automatically mean it's ethical or moral.

One of the rules in North Korea is that criminals sent to the concentration camps, depending on the severity of their crime, will also have other generations of their family sent with them.

They are entitled to make that rule, but does that make it OK? Is it right that a man convicted of theft in Chongjin will be sent to a concentration camp and that the generations above and below him will be sent, too?

So again, the argument that a country is entitled to make its own rules does not mean the rules it makes must be respected.

It means they must be respected if you're IN the country, but we're on an internet forum having a dicussion ABOUT their rules.

Again - NOBODY, or at least, not me, is saying that if you're in their country, you don't have to respect their rules.
Click to expand...

the ironic thing is that you are now doing what you accused Ruth of - I strongly suspect that the indonesian govt doesnt give a flying **** whether you (outside of their country) respect their rules - so what are you going to do about it ?

You are effectively saying that you want someoneelse (essentially the international community) do do something about it for you.

Also this thread is about the actions of a person who was inside their country when she chose not to respect their rules - and is now suffering the consequences
 
London Headshots said:
I like you BSM, but it's getting a bit tiresome explaining this again and again. This will also be the third time I've said that self defence is a different argument from capital punishment.

This argument is about capital punishment. I'm going to write a sentence that explains capital punishment, and implore you to just assume anything NOT covered by it, is fair game for killing:

"We have some specific laws in this country, that, if broken, are punishable by death".

That's it. That has nothing to do with warfare or self defence, or acts of aggression of any kind.

If someone comes in your home and threatens the lives of your loved ones, you're fully entitled, in my opinion, to use whatever force necessary to protect them. The same way a government is MANDATED to use whatever force necessary to protect its inhabitants from foreign and domestic enemies.
Click to expand...


Ah so when you decide it's morally correct to take someone's life that's ok because they were in your house threatening your loved ones that's fine that's moral and that's correct. But when a government protects its borders from drug dealers attempting to kill its people with drugs to kill that person is not moral or correct?
 
London Headshots said:
. The same way a government is MANDATED to use whatever force necessary to protect its inhabitants from foreign and domestic enemies.
Click to expand...

exactly - and the indonesian govt feels that the use of force as the death penalty is necesary to protect its inhabitants from drug smugglers (ie the enemy in that context) QED
 
London Headshots said:
I like you BSM, but it's getting a bit tiresome explaining this again and again. This will also be the third time I've said that self defence is a different argument from capital punishment.

This argument is about capital punishment. I'm going to write a sentence that explains capital punishment, and implore you to just assume anything NOT covered by it, is fair game for killing:

"We have some specific laws in this country, that, if broken, are punishable by death".

That's it. That has nothing to do with warfare or self defence, or acts of aggression of any kind.

If someone comes in your home and threatens the lives of your loved ones, you're fully entitled, in my opinion, to use whatever force necessary to protect them. The same way a government is MANDATED to use whatever force necessary to protect its inhabitants from foreign and domestic enemies.
Click to expand...

What if the jury found said person guilty of murder in a so called self defence case....would the capital punishment sentence still hang in the balance (pun intended!)
 
London Headshots said:
It's a personal jibe to point out your age and your demographic? You think I was saying that to insult you? Please...

I'm outlining the ridiculousness of a middle-aged woman sitting comfortably in picturesque Kent taking about how Britain needs to let the world know it can't be "****ed with".

Who is going to be letting everyone know? You? Gonna do it in between posting hundreds of threads on a photography forum? Gonna put down your camera for a bit and go and bust some heads? Got an idea for some state sanctioned act of violence to let them world know that we're ready to wreck ***** for...some...reason.

I'm guessing you want someone to do it for you. You want to sponsor whatever group is capable of sending out some peculiar message to the other 200+ countries on planet earth that we, the United Kingdom, can't be "****ed with".

And at what? Basketball? Chess? Let everyone know that we will totally destroy anyone at naughts and crosses?

This is an argument about the death penalty in Bali and the moral implications of capital punishment. What does Britain being this mighty nation that can't be "****ed with" have to do with ANYTHING?

I really cannot stand jingoism in any form. It's so... boring.
Click to expand...

As I said. I am still not holding my breath for you provide anything constructive, sensible or pertinent.
 
I'm not going to do anything about it other than be vocal in my opposition to it.

I'm not "effectively" saying anything. I've been crystal clear in this thread.

It's amazing that I've explain my position to you multiple times, and you still simply ignore it. Why is that?
 
London Headshots said:
I'm not going to do anything about it other than be vocal in my opposition to it.

I'm not "effectively" saying anything. I've been crystal clear in this thread.

It's amazing that I've explain my position to you multiple times, and you still simply ignore it. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because at the same time as holding and espousing your own opinions, you point blank refuse to accept the validity of anyone elses.
 
London Headshots said:
It's amazing that I've explain my position to you multiple times, and you still simply ignore it. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring it , i'm disagreeing with it

in short my view is that your position ie 'its not okay for a govt to kill for any circumstances, but it is mandated to protect itself from its enemies by any necessary force' is logically inconsistent

if its moraly okay to kill your countries enemies to protect your society , then how can it not be morally okay to execute those caught actively attacking the fabric of your society by violating your laws ?
 
pepi1967 said:
Ah so when you decide it's morally correct to take someone's life that's ok because they were in your house threatening your loved ones that's fine that's moral and that's correct. But when a government protects its borders from drug dealers attempting to kill its people with drugs to kill that person is not moral or correct?
Click to expand...

Both are moral arguments worthy of dissection, but there are times when being morally grey is justifiable in my opinion.

A governments power should be limited, because only with limitation are we protected from abuse of power. The same way banks being deregulated meant that a bunch of people were able to rip everyone off for decades, so is the same issue with a government who has no limitation on the punishments it can inflict on its countrymen. I'm really surprised that ANYONE would actually support the killing of people as a punishment for broken laws, by ANY government. Unless you don't care about the possibility that it would be wide open to abuse. In which case, I don't know what to say.

Besides, your argument has a critical flaw - It's OK, arguably, to kill someone who is trying to kill you or something close to you. That's taking a life to save a life. Morally grey, but arguably right.

It would be a different story, in my opinion, if you discovered a murdered loved one and then went and hunted and killed the person responsible. The act has been committed, and thus in your actions, you commit a further crime.

If you're caught for any crime, the resulting punishment being that you are killed makes the issuer of that punishment no better than the criminal. It makes the government worse, in fact, because they were the only party who were implicit and crystal clear in their motive.

I know that won't be read and will be largely ignored, though.
 
viv1969 said:
As I said. I am still not holding my breath for you provide anything constructive, sensible or pertinent.
Click to expand...

No, what you're doing is patently confirming that you don't actually have any ability to argue your point. Everything I've posted as been sensible, constructive and pertinent, and no reasonable person would suggest otherwise.
 
London Headshots said:
No, what you're doing is patently confirming that you don't actually have any ability to argue your point. Everything I've posted as been sensible, constructive and pertinent, and no reasonable person would suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

But I don't think any reasonable person would allow a convicted drug mule, sentenced under the country's own statute law, to be let off.
 
London Headshots said:
Both are moral arguments worthy of dissection, but there are times when being morally grey is justifiable in my opinion.

A governments power should be limited, because only with limitation are we protected from abuse of power. The same way banks being deregulated meant that a bunch of people were able to rip everyone off for decades, so is the same issue with a government who has no limitation on the punishments it can inflict on its countrymen. I'm really surprised that ANYONE would actually support the killing of people as a punishment for broken laws, by ANY government. Unless you don't care about the possibility that it would be wide open to abuse. In which case, I don't know what to say.

Besides, your argument has a critical flaw - It's OK, arguably, to kill someone who is trying to kill you or something close to you. That's taking a life to save a life. Morally grey, but arguably right.

It would be a different story, in my opinion, if you discovered a murdered loved one and then went and hunted and killed the person responsible. The act has been committed, and thus in your actions, you commit a further crime.

If you're caught for any crime, the resulting punishment being that you are killed makes the issuer of that punishment no better than the criminal. It makes the government worse, in fact, because they were the only party who were implicit and crystal clear in their motive.

I know that won't be read and will be largely ignored, though.
Click to expand...

Morally grey? What do you mean by morally grey? Are you saying your morals can be swayed one way or another to suit a certain situation?

Their is no such thing as morally grey you either have them or you don't. If you can swap and change to suit the situation your no better than the governments which you despise. so really having no morals at all.
 
While reading this thread i was reminded of an old quote:-

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Thomas Paine, The Crisis
Click to expand...

So many people just interested in stating their position and not listening...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top