3 ms·

I'm against the death penalty, but I dislike many of the arguments made by many who agree with me. My position is straightforward: I assert that the state shoul

by chroma 13y ago

I'm against the death penalty, but I dislike many of the arguments made by many who agree with me. My position is straightforward: I assert that the state should not have the power of life and death over its subjects. That's it. No need to address implementation details involving racism and cruelty and deterrence. Really though, politics is the mindkiller[1] and this article isn't going to change anyone's position. I'm glad it will soon fall off the front page. (Even if it gets upvoted, I trust the moderators to bury it.) 1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

mikeash 13y ago
To me, your argument is simply a restatement of the conclusion. To be a real argument, it needs to add something.
- chroma 13y ago
  I don't disagree with you, and in fact I never said my position was an argument. Most of us use assertions when it comes to human rights. For example, most of us would agree that the state doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to enslave or torture, no matter what crime one may have committed. There may be very good arguments for doing these things (deterrence, saves more lives than it destroys, punishment proportional to the crime, etc), but we outright reject any system that would allow, let alone engage in, these horrific practices.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    We can still talk about why those things are worth rejecting. You don't seem to want that.
    - chroma 13y ago
      I don't mind the discussion, but I think the arguments on both sides are typically rationalizations. People have quick, visceral responses in which they form conclusions on these matters, then they think of reasons why those conclusions must be true. That process seems to happen in a lot of areas, but none more so than discussion of politics and morality. By the way: Thank you for your responses. I like how you've managed to be concise, civil, and probing.

by chroma 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

To me, your argument is simply a restatement of the conclusion. To be a real argument, it needs to add something.

chroma 13y ago
I don't disagree with you, and in fact I never said my position was an argument. Most of us use assertions when it comes to human rights. For example, most of us would agree that the state doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to enslave or torture, no matter what crime one may have committed. There may be very good arguments for doing these things (deterrence, saves more lives than it destroys, punishment proportional to the crime, etc), but we outright reject any system that would allow, let alone engage in, these horrific practices.
- mikeash 13y ago
  We can still talk about why those things are worth rejecting. You don't seem to want that.
  - chroma 13y ago
    I don't mind the discussion, but I think the arguments on both sides are typically rationalizations. People have quick, visceral responses in which they form conclusions on these matters, then they think of reasons why those conclusions must be true. That process seems to happen in a lot of areas, but none more so than discussion of politics and morality. By the way: Thank you for your responses. I like how you've managed to be concise, civil, and probing.