Scholar

We have to abolish factory farming, it's feasible given that we don't need to consume animal products, and especially not on that scale.

That's not what a strawman is, and I never said anyone is conspiring to create super viruses. I am saying these are the consequences of the system in place.

Primarily due to animal agriculture, a super-virus is simply a matter of time. The conditions within factory farms are optimal for the evolution of zoonotic diseases that can cross the species barrier. This has been known for decades, yet consumptive habits nor regulations do anything to curb this issue in a significant way. Factory farms basically are incubators for the most nasty bacteria and viruses possible. If you wanted to create a virus that wiped out half of mankind, you would do so by building factory farms. If you wanted to create antibiotic resistant bacteria that could kill hundreds of millions of people, you would also just build factory farms. All you really need to create the most potent biological weapon possible is factory farms and time.

https://heavy.com/news/man-set-himself-on-fire-trump-trial-video/ His manifesto: https://www.newsweek.com/read-max-azzarello-manifesto-about-lighting-himself-fire-trump-trial-1892368 All of you guys who have called that other insane person who set themselves on fire infront of the Israeli embassy a hero, well, these are the consequences of such attitudes. This doesn't do anything but cause more harm and suffering. Nobody will be convinced by this, in fact, quite the opposite. And the only people who will be motivated by such actions will be mentally ill people who will now feel like they have a good excuse for finally kill themselves. Social media is frying people's brains and it is genuinely becoming the Nr 1 national security risk for most developed countries. This is only the beginning, it will get far worse before anyone will regulate the technologies that are actively eroding the fabric of society.

Your dreams indicate immaturity. We need to be very careful, especially in todays climate, about upholding our ideals of civility. It might be the most crucial time in history to do so, because of how high the stakes are. Civility is not guaranteed.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because we do not even punish such people with life in prison. It wouldn't be a greater deterant than if you simply put them in prison for life. Your logic is just silly. You only get negatives, while achieving nothing that you could not achieve with deterants that are in line with fundamental priniples of humanity, civility and moral progress. Even ChatGPT is more sophisticated than you are on this question, which should be embarrassing. Especially people such as the most vile criminals are essential for us as a society to transcend such flaws in our nature. We must understand them, we must allow them to to exist so as to demonstrate our core values as a soiety, and we must allow them to redeem themselves. If you just execute everyone who is evil, how will we ever learn how these people came to be? Their self-understanding, as would be achieved through self-reflection, is of essential utility to us. There are various other arguments for why the death penality in the contemporary context is simply inappropriate, but that would require you to think about what you say before you say it. Alternatively you can go and ask Claude for some guidance.

Because you can't just make special exemptions on a fundamental principle of civility based on some socialist ideal you have because you listen to too much Hasan. The entire idea of killing defenseless people, which has never shown to have any impact on preventing crime, is something we are moving away from as a developed society. Putting them in prison for life would be more than sufficient. There is literally no point in contradicting our fundamental values as a society so that we an feel validated about "punishing the rich". Especially in a context in which we don't even put these people in prison! How about you start putting them in prison instead of going for executions and opening pandora's box? Mayber we should make a very simple clear cut law that executes people who advocate for the usage of psychedelics and moral nihilism, which leads to an increase in suicidality and social harm.

That's exactly the language fascists employ. What you don't realize is that you are actually the parasite, and that, by your own logic, you should be eradicated. But of course, you don't agree with that, because you are a parasite, whose nature is ignorance and malice, and therefore believes that you won't be one of the people who should get executed. You're lucky most of mankind has transcended this laughably undeveloped mentality, so in the end you are privileged enough to never get to experience the consequences of your ignorance. But you are free to circle-jerk on here with all the rest of the socially and mentally defunct people on this forum.

The funny thing is, by giving power to the state to execute people, realistically, you are giving the most powerful and wealthy the power to execute people, because they are the ones who will have most influence over the system. It's kind of how democracy in the US no longer is about reflecting the views of the population, but rather, political figures and various interests instilling in the population certain viewpoints that will benefit them. Like how half of your society was convinced that they cared about denying climate change, when they never did, and never would have if the politicians wouldn't have implanted those issues in their brains.

That's what the chinese said.

This is precisely the lack of humanity I am speaking of. By condemning this individual to unnecessary death and suffering, we deny our own universality. This is to say that this person is jimwell's incarnation, and that he will be the next incarnation, too. So, in essence, he is wishing death and suffering upon himself, because his lack of development blinds him to the nature of individuation.

Giving the state the power to execute individuals (especially politically relevant ones) is a sign of lack of development. There is no reason to execute individuals, under any circumstances, when we have the ability to restrain them. The killing of a defenseless other is in essence a barbaric act, as it is senseless and achieves no utilitarian gain. It would showcase that the judicial system is uncivilized. But most importantly, it would give the state power it should never have. On a more fundamental level, the restraint to not kill individuals who even commit the greatest atrocities, akin to Andres Breivik, shows that society will not allow individual actors within it to degrade it's own humanity. By maintaining civility, we maintain the core and pillar of civilization. The prohibition of killing defenseless individuals serves to remind us that this very act is unconscionable, even if we think we have good reasons for it. If everyone who thought they had good reasons for killing others would kill others, civilization could not function. Perhaps even more important is that, the employment and support of capital punishment means that a society has not learned the profound importance of forgiveness as a foundational value that fuels human progress. And of course, we have various harm-reduction arguments like executions of innocent individuals being inevitable given human error and corruption. Due the irrevocable nature of capital punishment and there being no recourse or ability to correct such mistakes, it is not justifiable to continue this practice, as it serve no proven end, other than the gratification and corruption of individuals who seek revenge.

“A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

But that is the whole point. Not everything that is in atrocity or bad equals a genocide. That's just incredibly stupid, and it has nothing to do with "accepting" certain definitions. These words have meanings, they aren't to be used arbitrarily. There are other words that describe various forms of mistreatment, you don't have to use the most morally loaded word, that we specifically have to describe the basically worst type of thing a nation can do, so that you get your political brownie points for being such a victim. That's not how it works, and it just delegitimizes the concept of genocide. I don't see how your example connects here. It is, defacto, a jewist state. It was created for the jews, by the jews and is maintained by the jews. There is nothing idiosyncratic about it. Using genocide to describe everything you don't like, however, is just assinine. Also, I never dismissed "all usages", just virtually 99.9% of these usages. If there are some scholars who discuss the nature of genicide, that is different. But this isn't what we are discussing here.

I don't think this is true. The word genocide had a clear meaning, namely, to attempt to eradicate (or remove) a certain population based on certain traits, intentionally. This is, more or less, what our understanding of genocide has been in the past an present. As far as I know, as defined by the UN, intentionality is key here, and that is what needs to be proven. I don't agree that leftists call this a genocide because they have an idiosyncratic understanding of genocide. In my view there are three main reasons why they use the most morally loaded word possible: 1) So they can frame anyone who disagrees with them as genocide denialists or supporters, and therefore dismiss and shame them. 2) So they can enforce ingroup compliance, given that individuals who might not totally fall in line with their views would fall risk to be viewed as denying or downplaying the probably greatest moral atrocity mankind is capable of committing. 3) So they can justify radical actions that otherwise would be unjustifiable or viewed as dysfunctional. To frame this as if it was a nuanced difference in viewpoints or positions on genocide is inappropriate. There is no discussion on the essence of genocide, the word is used solely because of it's moral weight. When they use this words, they clearly ascribe intent to the Israeli government. This is essential to their narrative, and this narrative falls apart because they cannot actually make a reasonable case for this.