zurew

So right now you have a point about workers being harmed by toxic human behaviour. How do you get around this question: Why shouldn't we kill people in mental asylums - they are giving people all sorts of bad vibes, unpredictable behaviour , probably a lot of anxiety and sadness as well.

You have this reasoning against innocent people dying , do you think your argument is strong? We need to be aware of what bullets we need to bite here.

Why shouldn't we kill them, if we are basing our moral system on money?

If we go with standard death penalty, then the economic part won't work either. It has a negative effect on the economy, because its much more expensive.

If we are talking about democracy, then society.

I mean morals are changing as we get more and more knowledge about stuff. A lot of past morals are hinging upon outdated knowledge.

But this argument is very vague. What does he mean by quality of life? Also if he really wants a developed country, then why would he be so fixated on groups, and not on individuals? Every group of people have developed and underdeveloped people ,so why focus on groups and races, when development is not inherent or exclusive to races? Why would you assume that white European's are exceptional compared to other people? This whole idea and ideology is based on a big assumption ,that haven't been proven yet, just assumed. I would like to hear an ability or trait that is exclusive to white Europeans, that contributes to their supposed superiority, and what no other race or group of people have. This is another thing that needs to be established and not just assumed. Yeah men and women are different but thats not necessarily indicates that man is more capable to understand and to run a country, that part needs to be established with reasoning and arguments. What is an inherent benefit to dictatorship, that couldn't be achieved with democracy otherwise?

Do you prefer authorianism, if your answer is yes, why?

Imo most imprisoned people are already jacked when they go there, and also most people there, are bored and they don't have much things to do , so they start to train, because it can build their survival rate there.

Thats not the case imo, the current point is to try to serve justice, but the current system has some holes in it , so the justice service is not perfect at all. If what you say would be the reason why we imprison people, then prisons would be vastly different, they would be similar to a Scandinavian prison, because statistically people there coming out as a better person and as a more well person who can function in society better. - So one could argue that they learn their lesson there better.

Do you have the exact same take as Leo or your view a little bit differ from it?

Now thats a completely different viewpoint, and I think thats a more reasonable principle to build from.

Yeah but that position's logical extension, is that we need to kill everyone, because then no one will be capable to suffer anymore. Optimizing everything and using the prevention of suffering as a main rule could lead to absurd conclusions. There needs to be other principles that can overwrite the 'ending of a living creatures suffering'.

Okay I Will clarify my position. I don't agree with Nick's values and takes.

Thats exactly why we shouldn't sentence in an easy going way without doing the necessary investigation(s) first.

I was being sarcastic.

Its not about not being able to stomach these things, its more about thinking this issue through multiple perspectives and seeing all the problems and ramifications in each and every argument. If you do that, then I think you would agree, that in current times (not in an utopistic world) death penalty is worse than life imprisonment. Just because something is edgy and hard to stomach doesn't necessarily indicates, that thats the right thing from all the alternative choices. I agree that even the most ridiculous option should be ideally thought through to get a more holistic view on things, but I think if the edgy option is worse than a different alternative one, then we need to be honest and choose the best from all the alternatives.

So basically if someone has a different ideology, or different views than them, then that person must be the devil, right?

Basically yes, if that was your argument in the firstplace, then im sorry i misundertood your position, I assumed that you were talking about the current times.

The killing part is the least expensive part. Here is a list of things that makes it very expensive: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

If we would live in a society, where corruption would be almost at 0% and we would have a perfect or at least necessarily tech to convict someone , then I would go with death penalty, because in a society where the corruption level is really low and other pieces are relatively in place, it would be really really hard to argue how could we heal or repair those people, when they were born in almost perfect society. Being aware that there is room for error and there is room for corruption, we shouldn't go with Leo's system where there is less investigation and evidence needed to convinct someone.

But thats the point, that you don't save anything, because death penalty is more expensive, or if you want to go with Leo's system, then you have to face with the reality of killing a lot of innocent people. You wouldn't let them lose, you would imprison them. Second if we are talking about people are mass murderers, as ive said before, most of them will be killed by police or the military, because there are laws already that let them kill a person if they violate those laws.

This is not realistic imo. Proving bad intent is like the most difficult thing to do in a court setting. There is no clear cut evidence that could be just used to immediately sentence anyone. Long investigation is needed no matter what to examine what happened, when it happened and how it happened, you need to listen to eye witnesses if there are some, you probably need dna evidence, or at the very least video evidence, but as time goes by video evidence will be less and less reliable because with deepfake you can create very fucking convincing stuff. In most cases there are long ass investigations needed to prove someone guilty, thats just how the justice system works, if it would be easy to prove someone guilty, there would be even more corruption and error in the system. Also if I go back to Leo's example with osama and Hitler, you wouldn't necessarily be able to point to clear cut cases where they directly did the killing. In most of the cases they planned murder indirectly, by using other people. In such complex cases, the proving trial will be incredibly complex.

Yeah this is probably true, I think its safe to say that parenting is in the top 3 for sure [maybe number 1]. Statistics support this as well. But how can you guys point to the finance / resource issue when all statistics are saying that death penalty is more expensive, only Leo's system would be more financially efficient, but there are other problems with his system, especially the corruption part.

To be honest, your "I am preteneding to be tier 2" posts are hilarious. Most of your posts are not saying anything tier 2 at all, and just repeating the same points over an over again like: and at the end of the day you don't address any of the underlying issues or arguments. Takes like this shows, that you haven't thought this topic through.