3 ms·

>I do see the difference, but I'm not convinced it's anything but marginal. That is incredibly myopic and presumptuous. You're effectively arguing that we're g

>I do see the difference, but I'm not convinced it's anything but marginal. That is incredibly myopic and presumptuous. You're effectively arguing that we're going to destroy your life so it'll be better if we just end it. If the person's life ends up being so terrible after the fact they still have the option of just ending it. There is no benefit to making such a callous decision for them. Calling the argument weak when your own is short-sighted and at the very worst disingenuous is kind of disgusting to me, personally. I am not even sure you understand your own position completely.

omginternets 10y ago
No. With respect you don't understand my position. I argue that a life sentence is only marginally better than a death sentence. I further argue that if we oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it causes substantial irreversible damage, then we must also oppose perpetual incarceration because the difference in harm is not large enough (IMHO). I, and many others, are not willing to do away with perpetual incarceration so this is not a satisfactory line of argumentation. From there, I reach my point: there are other, more compelling arguments against the death penalty. I'll say the same thing to you as the other guy: you're making assumptions about my position relative to capital punishment. If you're going to call people disgusting, at least make a good-faith effort to understand what they're saying.
- popmystack 10y ago
  You brought up those points, but there is no supporting evidence for them. There is plenty of accounts from people who went through this process with the exact opposite opinion you are stating. No where in my post was there indication or any reason to make the claim that I don't understand what you're saying. I get what you're saying, it's just unsupported and presumptuous -- which is exactly what I said in my first post. Even if we knew that in every single case that your life was completely ruined after the fact for various reasons (which is factually not the case), it's still morally reprehensible that you consider the outcomes marginally different to the point where whether or not we allowed you to live is insignificant. I don't consider this argument weak at all. There is no reason for it to be weak; in fact the only way it can be weak is if you make certain assumptions (that we know aren't true) along with some other not-so-popular philosophical value judgements. Hence, not only is the position rather disgusting at a certain level, but making a claim that the argument in discussion is weak is actually rather weakly supported in and of itself. Again, it is you who does not really understand the position you are taking. I'm not sure how much more you want me to spell it out.
- fmihaila 10y ago
  > I argue that a life sentence is only marginally better than a death sentence. I further argue that if we oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it causes substantial irreversible damage, then we must also oppose perpetual incarceration because the difference in harm is not large enough (IMHO). This is where your argument fails to convince me (and, I suspect, many others). I could accept, if I really stretched myself, that a death sentence is only marginally worse than a life sentence, but only up to the point when it is actually carried out. The obvious discontinuity brought about by the irreversibility of death cannot be ignored; it makes the distinction between the two sentences not marginal, but catastrophic. Because of this, your argument is weak (IMHO, in keeping with your restrained manner).

omginternets 10y ago

No. With respect you don't understand my position. I argue that a life sentence is only marginally better than a death sentence. I further argue that if we oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it causes substantial irreversible damage, then we must also oppose perpetual incarceration because the difference in harm is not large enough (IMHO). I, and many others, are not willing to do away with perpetual incarceration so this is not a satisfactory line of argumentation. From there, I reach my point: there are other, more compelling arguments against the death penalty. I'll say the same thing to you as the other guy: you're making assumptions about my position relative to capital punishment. If you're going to call people disgusting, at least make a good-faith effort to understand what they're saying.

popmystack 10y ago
You brought up those points, but there is no supporting evidence for them. There is plenty of accounts from people who went through this process with the exact opposite opinion you are stating. No where in my post was there indication or any reason to make the claim that I don't understand what you're saying. I get what you're saying, it's just unsupported and presumptuous -- which is exactly what I said in my first post. Even if we knew that in every single case that your life was completely ruined after the fact for various reasons (which is factually not the case), it's still morally reprehensible that you consider the outcomes marginally different to the point where whether or not we allowed you to live is insignificant. I don't consider this argument weak at all. There is no reason for it to be weak; in fact the only way it can be weak is if you make certain assumptions (that we know aren't true) along with some other not-so-popular philosophical value judgements. Hence, not only is the position rather disgusting at a certain level, but making a claim that the argument in discussion is weak is actually rather weakly supported in and of itself. Again, it is you who does not really understand the position you are taking. I'm not sure how much more you want me to spell it out.
fmihaila 10y ago
> I argue that a life sentence is only marginally better than a death sentence. I further argue that if we oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it causes substantial irreversible damage, then we must also oppose perpetual incarceration because the difference in harm is not large enough (IMHO). This is where your argument fails to convince me (and, I suspect, many others). I could accept, if I really stretched myself, that a death sentence is only marginally worse than a life sentence, but only up to the point when it is actually carried out. The obvious discontinuity brought about by the irreversibility of death cannot be ignored; it makes the distinction between the two sentences not marginal, but catastrophic. Because of this, your argument is weak (IMHO, in keeping with your restrained manner).