Heiho,
I'm not the flowery [Gutmensch] <edit> seems the only nearly correct term would be a notoriously Good Mind</edit>, lunatically searching for good in anything, and feverishly avoiding harm or even the thought of harm, if that's what you're on about.
Death penalty is a barbarian act. It originates from ideas of revenge, not justice, because it dates back to times where justice meant revenge. Human society should be beyond this eye per eye, tooth per tooth stuff.
Following question to you: How do you think about hacking a thief's hand off?
You try to suggest I'm against judging people for murder in general? That's missing my point. I refer to any means earlier mentioned here, like those 'mind-reading' stuff, which will be under same prejudices similar to lie detectors. Like the chronoscope thing you've mentioned yourself. Shortly before the general habit of this thread slipped away to more flaming, less argumenting.
I don't have a problem with any devices in general. But relying on those to skip someone to the afterlife is simply putting the blame away.
<edit>To be clear again: not the blame of the convicted, _your_ blame to kill someone. No need to involve mothers here.</edit>
Sorry, but to me the discussion seemed to be about someone on the Green Mile. He's there because he was judged, and the judges were under the impression that he's guilty. The main point is so far that he is _maybe_ innocent, and by which means this could be cleared.
In this special case evidence is indeed execution, sooner or later.
And if evidence is gained in a perfectly safe way, some think death penalty is ok.
I wonder if any thread discussing someone who's imprisoned for theft would rise the same heat in argument. If not, why here? And here it is, just because some people feel bad about punishing someone to death who may be innocent.
Now, in this context, suddenly it becomes important to rely on far-fetched devices for gaining evidence in perfectly safe ways. Finger prints and DNA seem not reliable enough anymore.
And I tell you that there's no perfectly safe way. You just want to close your eyes and sleep well, because a machine told you it's ok to kill someone. Or, more precisely, your interpretation of the output of a device similar to a lie detector told you so.
Now speak again about ignorance.
Quote:Noted. How do you feel about 'retroactive birth control', 'vermin extermination', 'crap to fertilizer conversion', etc.?I think those are completely different matters which would deserve a thread each of their own. So I won't elaborate on these here.
I'm not the flowery [Gutmensch] <edit> seems the only nearly correct term would be a notoriously Good Mind</edit>, lunatically searching for good in anything, and feverishly avoiding harm or even the thought of harm, if that's what you're on about.
Death penalty is a barbarian act. It originates from ideas of revenge, not justice, because it dates back to times where justice meant revenge. Human society should be beyond this eye per eye, tooth per tooth stuff.
Following question to you: How do you think about hacking a thief's hand off?
Quote:I realize that you are operating under the handicap of not using your native language, but even allowing for that, I can't quite figure out what this means. Consider: I have a videotape from a security camera showing you shooting a clerk. The tape is clear, your features are well recorded. What interpretation does this require?
You try to suggest I'm against judging people for murder in general? That's missing my point. I refer to any means earlier mentioned here, like those 'mind-reading' stuff, which will be under same prejudices similar to lie detectors. Like the chronoscope thing you've mentioned yourself. Shortly before the general habit of this thread slipped away to more flaming, less argumenting.
I don't have a problem with any devices in general. But relying on those to skip someone to the afterlife is simply putting the blame away.
<edit>To be clear again: not the blame of the convicted, _your_ blame to kill someone. No need to involve mothers here.</edit>
Quote:Your failure to distinguish the capabilities and limitations of technologies reflects on your ignorance and not their failings.
Sorry, but to me the discussion seemed to be about someone on the Green Mile. He's there because he was judged, and the judges were under the impression that he's guilty. The main point is so far that he is _maybe_ innocent, and by which means this could be cleared.
In this special case evidence is indeed execution, sooner or later.
And if evidence is gained in a perfectly safe way, some think death penalty is ok.
I wonder if any thread discussing someone who's imprisoned for theft would rise the same heat in argument. If not, why here? And here it is, just because some people feel bad about punishing someone to death who may be innocent.
Now, in this context, suddenly it becomes important to rely on far-fetched devices for gaining evidence in perfectly safe ways. Finger prints and DNA seem not reliable enough anymore.
And I tell you that there's no perfectly safe way. You just want to close your eyes and sleep well, because a machine told you it's ok to kill someone. Or, more precisely, your interpretation of the output of a device similar to a lie detector told you so.
Now speak again about ignorance.