Death Penalty in Bali

Status
Not open for further replies.
big soft moose said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Because they are two different arguments that have no relation to each other on any level.

I will say that I'm also opposed to war. I'm not opposed to a country protecting itself because of an invasion or an imminent threat, but there hasn't been one of those for many decades. A philosophically aware people do not need war, they make do with diplomacy.

There is no logical inconsistency unless you're putting capital punishment and war in the same playbook - doing so is inexplicable. They aren't related.
 
tiler65 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I forgot that I'd suggested that a drug mule should be "let off".

What are you talking about?
 
pepi1967 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are moral, legal, sexual and intellectual grey areas. It's a way of saying "We don't have all the facts, so we must debate until we reach the best conclusion we can".

You do know what a "grey area" is, right? Morally grey, as a philosophical concept does not exist, but morals themselves may not either, so we are burdened with the process of debating and deducing until a set of clear rules have been defined. Hence we use phrases to replace long explanations. In this instance "morally grey".

That's what philosophy is. Or were you under the impression that we'd figured it all out already?
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Because they are two different arguments that have no relation to each other on any level.

I will say that I'm also opposed to war. I'm not opposed to a country protecting itself because of an invasion or an imminent threat, but there hasn't been one of those for many decades. A philosophically aware people do not need war, they make do with diplomacy.

There is no logical inconsistency unless you're putting capital punishment and war in the same playbook - doing so is inexplicable. They aren't related.
Click to expand...

Kuwait was invaded in the 1990's I suppose you class that as many decades ago.
Not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan of course.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
There are moral, legal, sexual and intellectual grey areas. It's a way of saying "We don't have all the facts, so we must debate until we reach the best conclusion we can".

You do know what a "grey area" is, right? Morally grey, as a philosophical concept does not exist, but morals themselves may not either, so we are burdened with the process of debating and deducing until a set of clear rules have been defined.

That's what philosophy is. Or were you under the impression that we'd figured it all out already?
Click to expand...

No not at all. But I would question anyone who says they have strong morals then change those morals to suit a certain situation like your saying you would do.

I would have no problem at all taking the life of anyone who hurt my family and I have no problem at all with someone being put to death for a crime. My morals don't move. Yours do. That's questionable.
 
I read in the tabloids earlier (so I accept it may or may not be true), that it came out in trial that this women had done several similar carries.

Kind of blows the 'oh the poor lady she was doing it to protect her kids' theory out of the water, if correct then its pretty clear to me that she was quite happy to carry the misery of her suppliers drugs through to enhance her own financial situation.

Reinforces my opinion that she should fully face the consequences of her actions.
 
tiler65 said:
Kuwait was invaded in the 1990's I suppose you class that as many decades ago.
Not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan of course.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Are you even reading what I write? None of those were an invasion on our shores or an imminent threat to British people.

I feel like I'm being trolled.
 
London Headshots said:
Wait, what? Are you even reading what I write? None of those were an invasion on our shores or an imminent threat to British people.

I feel like I'm being trolled.
Click to expand...

To be fair you didnt mention our shores....

But perhaps Tom could answer the questions put to him rather than just look where people have made a typo.
 
London Headshots said:
Wait, what? Are you even reading what I write? None of those were an invasion on our shores or an imminent threat to British people.

I will say that I'm also opposed to war. I'm not opposed to a country protecting itself because of an invasion or an imminent threat, but there hasn't been one of those for many decades. A philosophically aware people do not need war, they make do with diplomacy.
Click to expand...

You wrote 'a country' you never mention only Britain had to be invaded.....try reading what you write yoursen. (it is hard for us to understand what you write sometimes so let this be your last chance!0
 
Rapscallion said:
To be fair you didnt mention our shores....

But perhaps Tom could answer the questions put to him rather than just look where people have made a typo.
Click to expand...

What typo?

I do answer all questions put to me...it is that LH doesn't agree with my answers and therefore I am wrong.
 
pepi1967 said:
No not at all. But I would question anyone who says they have strong morals then change those morals to suit a certain situation like your saying you would do.

I would have no problem at all taking the life of anyone who hurt my family and I have no problem at all with someone being put to death for a crime. My morals don't move. Yours do. That's questionable.
Click to expand...

I love the idea that you believe you have an complete set of unshakeable morals.
 
Rapscallion said:
To be fair you didnt mention our shores....

But perhaps Tom could answer the questions put to him rather than just look where people have made a typo.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters. It's not wrong to defend yourself from an invasion. It's not wrong to protect yourself from an imminent threat. For some inexplicable reason, people have decided to somehow use that as a justification for capital punishment.

Which is just... odd.
 
London Headshots said:
I don't think it matters. It's not wrong to defend yourself from an invasion. It's not wrong to protect yourself from an imminent threat. For some inexplicable reason, people have decided to somehow use that as a justification for capital punishment.

Which is just... odd.
Click to expand...

Since im feeling patient.....:)

You said in post 361

I'm not opposed to a country protecting itself because of an invasion or an imminent threat, but there hasn't been one of those for many decades
Click to expand...

Tom said in post 364

Kuwait was invaded in the 1990's I suppose you class that as many decades ago.
Not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan of course.
Click to expand...

You replied in 368

Wait, what? Are you even reading what I write? None of those were an invasion on our shores or an imminent threat to British people.

I feel like I'm being trolled.
Click to expand...

I pointed out in in post 369

To be fair you didnt mention our shores....
Click to expand...


Or maybe people are arguing for the sake of it, never seen it here before so that would surprise me...:razz:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tiler65 said:
You wrote 'a country' you never mention only Britain had to be invaded.....try reading what you write yoursen. (it is hard for us to understand what you write sometimes so let this be your last chance!0
Click to expand...

Really, who cares what country I'm talking about? The subject is now, inexplicably, about countries protecting themselves. Of course I will reference Britain, because that si the country I am posting from.

I took it for granted that you would take that fact and extrapolate, based on all other posts I've made, to simply assume that I would expect that basic right to extend to other nations.
 
London Headshots said:
Really, who cares what country I'm talking about? The subject is now, inexplicably, about countries protecting themselves. Of course I will reference Britain, because that si the country I am posting from.

I took it for granted that you would take that fact and extrapolate, based on all other posts I've made, to simply assume that I would expect that basic right to extend to other nations.
Click to expand...

And yet it's not thier right to uphold the laws of thier nation and carry out a sentence handed down within the boundaries of thier own judicial system?
 
tiler65 said:
To be pedantic that is not a typo it is a completely different, there was more than one word needed to be removed for it to be a typo.
Click to expand...

The paragraph reads correctly to me if i substitute 'a' for 'our'....:thinking:
 
viv1969 said:
And yet it's not thier right to uphold the laws of thier nation and carry out a sentence handed down within the boundaries of thier own judicial system?
Click to expand...

It certainly is, and its our right to discuss and critique if we so wish.
 
Rapscallion said:
Since im feeling patient.....:)

You said in post 361



Tom said in post 364



You replied in 368



I pointed out in in post 369




Or maybe people are arguing for the sake of it, never seen it here before so that would surprise me...:razz:
Click to expand...

The reference made was "your countries enemies to protect your society "

Thus, I replied that there hadn't been an invasion of any such kind for decades.

The "your" was possessive, thus my reply was referencing the only country such a pronoun could point to.
 
Rapscallion said:
It certainly is, and its our right to discuss and critique if we so wish.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, and with all due respect, nowhere have I stated any different :thinking:
 
London Headshots said:
The reference made was "your countries enemies to protect your society "

Thus, I replied that there hadn't been an invasion of any such kind for decades.

The "your" was possessive, thus my reply was referencing the only country such a pronoun could point to.
Click to expand...

But not everyone on these boards live in the UK so we have assume we are talking about multi national shores unless you are specific!
 
viv1969 said:
And yet it's not thier right to uphold the laws of thier nation and carry out a sentence handed down within the boundaries of thier own judicial system?
Click to expand...

"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."

That'll be the fourth time.
 
London Headshots said:
The reference made was "your countries enemies to protect your society "

Thus, I replied that there hadn't been an invasion of any such kind for decades.

The "your" was possessive, thus my reply was referencing the only country such a pronoun could point to.
Click to expand...

John, i have to agree with Tiler that the post was unclear. I dont think he was trolling when he mentioned 1991 invasion as your post said

I'm not opposed to a country protecting itself because of an invasion or an imminent threat, but there hasn't been one of those for many decades.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable to comprehend that 'a country' means any any country...
 
tiler65 said:
But not everyone on these boards live in the UK so we have assume we are talking about multi national shores unless you are specific!
Click to expand...

Yes, except the person was speaking to me, and using "your". It's not unreasonable for me to then reference my own country of residence.
 
Rapscallion said:
John, i have to agree with Tiler that the post was unclear. I dont think he was trolling when he mentioned 1991 invasion as your post said



Seems reasonable to comprehend that 'a country' means any any country...
Click to expand...

How can anyone in a discussion be called a troll...it is about time that word was barred from discussion threads. It is demeaning, exactly the same way keyboard warrior is used - how else is someone supposed to communicate in a type written forum.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Yes, except the person was speaking to me, and using "your".It's not unreasonable for me to then reference my own country of residence.
Click to expand...

But intending 'my country' when using the words 'a country' is sure to cause confusion. And perhaps calling someone a troll for not understanding your meaning is a little unnecessary?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
London Headshots said:
"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."

That'll be the fourth time.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not for your seemingly fluid morals / ethics. As you've already seen though, there are many many people for whom the Bali decision poses no moral or ethical problem.
 
Rapscallion said:
John, i have to agree with Tiler that the post was unclear. I dont think he was trolling when he mentioned 1991 invasion as your post said



Seems reasonable to comprehend that 'a country' means any any country...
Click to expand...

That reply wasn't to Tiler, it was to Big Soft Moose, who said:

"if its moraly okay to kill your countries enemies to protect your[/a] society "

to which I replied:

"I'm not opposed to a country protecting itself because of an invasion or an imminent threat, but there hasn't been one of those for many decades"

So yes, while it would've been more explicit if I'd have used "our" instead of "a", the initial boundaries were set by the originating post to which I was replying.

Besides, it's a really weak point. On the grand scheme of things, it's so infinitesimally meaningless that I can only assume that it's the only hole in my argument anyone can find.

PRobably why nobody will let go of the "their country their rule" angle.
 
viv1969 said:
Perhaps not for your seemingly fluid morals / ethics. As you've already seen though, there are many many people for whom the Bali decision poses no moral or ethical problem.
Click to expand...

I massively appreciate you letting me know that not everyone has a problem with what happened in Bali. I thought I was talking to a bunch of people who completely supported my stance!

Thanks so much, Ruth, for another poignent and thought-provoking contribution to the discussion!

I can't wait for your next post.
 
Playing devils advocate, who sets these ethical and Moral standards, just because its not acceptable to us in a western civilisation, why do we automatically think that we're right, and other countries are wrong?

on another note did anyone see the paragraph in the Sun on Monday about the men in Iran who carried out a robbery with machetes and then posted it on You Tube, 2 were paraded through the streets and then hung, the other 2 (i think it was) were sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence and 74 lashes, the question has to be asked why all the fuss about this lady? is it just because she's western, these sorts of sentences are dished out and followed through on a daily basis in these countries and never make news
 
Rapscallion said:
But intending 'my country' when using the words 'a country' is sure to cause confusion. And perhaps calling someone a troll for not understanding your meaning is a little unnecessary?
Click to expand...

I didn't call anyone a troll, I said "I fell like I'm being trolled", because I can't seem to stop anyone repeating the same thing to me as an argument against me, when I've explicitly stated multiple times that I have no issue with a country imposing rules.

It was an exclamation along the same lines of "I despair, I really do".
 
London Headshots said:
I massively appreciate you letting me know that not everyone has a problem with what happened in Bali. I thought I was talking to a bunch of people who completely supported my stance!

Thanks so much, Ruth, for another poignent and thought-provoking contribution to the discussion!

I can't wait for your next post.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable!
 
Clearly Kelly's message wan't heeded :shake:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top