Why not 7, though? That should be way safer.
Must we always go to these extremes in the conversations? It’s like you refuse to have reasonable dialogue on things because you’re insistent that everyone takes their point to the lowest or highest possible level. That’s not how society thinks about it’s laws typically nor should it.
Why should it be up to a driver’s sole discretion how fast to drive, if it shouldn’t be up to an individuals sole discretion where to fire his gun? Both are deadly if done with poor judgement, both are safeish if done with good judgement.
BAC level could be used as a scale to determine what punishment you get. I don’t think the current implementation of BAC is fair, as in general anything over the limit results in largely the same charges (the judge will might sentence you differently, but that is too subjective IMO).
If safety is the goal, why not 7?
True. Thinking that way would produce terrible results. Just awful. It’s better not to even think.
It shouldn’t even “be up to a driver’s sole discretion” where he drives. What are you talking about?
I agree.
It’s better to come to reasonable solutions based on what is best for society. Not to say things like well if we should have a speed limit why have cars?!
Thankfully the vast majority of people actually think the way I do about how we should make the rules of society. And not that it should either be no rules or all the rules should be as harsh as possible. No middle ground! The best answer to most things is often in the middle. But you don’t want to talk about anything even close to it. Which is a shame because you’re a smart guy, but the “why not X then” on a consistent basis detracts from meaningful discussion.
1 Like
You’re bad at arguing, dude.
That’s true. Nazi Germany could have killed no Jews or every Jew. Luckily, they took the middle ground. (I’m sure there was at least one Jew that deserved death for a crime he committed.)
(/s)
I actually think there’s a right and a wrong just about every time the question involves the initiation or threat of violence.
Perhaps, but the punishment/imposed deaths during the holocaust (keep in mind I am Jewish, lost a fairly significant portion of my extended family to this) were imposed upon the basis of merely being Jewish, not for a crime anyone may have legitimately committed.
I’m sure some of those executed in the rwandan genocide had committed a crime prior to their execution, doesn’t excuse the fact that they were persecuted over religious beliefs and nothing more. Trials are/should be taken via a case by case basis. You’re probably not going to go to court over a traffic ticket and leave with a life sentence because you grew opium twenty years ago etc, it’s irrelevant to the case at hand and the duration of time elapsed since makes the crime insignificant (keep in mind this isn’t murder, though perhaps… Indirectly).
Furthermore Nazi Germany wasn’t looking to take the middle ground, the end goal was to exterminate the Jews.
Using Nazi Germany and/or genocide as an example of “all or nothing” methodology is tremendously flawed. Cases/crimes SHOULD be looked at via a case by case basis (and I think they are within most secular nations). Each individual case consists of differing environmental factors, the crime may be of differing severity (blowing .05 vs .15) etc. To put a blanket rule of “no, just no… Zero tolerance” doesn’t always work… With alcohol and marijuana said approach backfired tremendously.
Bro, (/s) means everything before that was sarcasm(granted: there was probably at least one Jew that had done something deserving of the death penalty, so maybe that sentence should have come after the (/s)).
I apologise, sometimes I fail to pick up when people are being sarcastic (one of the many downfalls of being autistic, albeit of the very high functioning subtype)
1 Like
No need to apologize. I just wanted to clarify it for you.
It should be noted the death penalty differs from the barbaric, inhumane ways of which concentration camp inmates and/or those in ghettos were put down.
Death via lethal injection is a hell of a lot less painful than
- slowly eroding civil liberties over the course of say 5-7 years
- pushing you into ghettos, starving you/barring access to adequate shielding from harsh environmental conditions
- once already emaciated, you’re shoved off into cattle carts (typically in freezing conditions) without toilets. From there you’d reach the camps… If you were lucky, you’d be sent off to take a “shower” or you would’ve been knelt down in a ditch and shot in the back of the head. If you were unlucky you’d go off to forced labour camps wherein you’d be forcibly worked to death… If extremely unlucky you’d be subjected to horrific experimental procedures conducted without anesthesia.
And this is describing how the situation unfolded in a mild mannered fashion… The sheer cruelty/ barbarity regarding the holocaust was indescribable.
Not even the most horrific of offenders barring sexually sadistic serial killers deserve such a fate. Saying statistically a few deserved it is somewhat inappropriate/distasteful in my opinion. Statistically speaking, roughly 25-50 serial killers are operating within the USA. That equates to 1 in 12.8 million to 1 in 6.4 million… 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust, perhaps not even one met the “serial killer” criteria (currently there are only around 14 million Jews in the world as a huge majority were wiped out 75 years ago)
I only said “deserving of the death penalty.”
If I may ask, what crimes do you believe are deserving of the death penalty. Generally I’m not an advocate for such barbaric measures aside from those who are irredeemable/unable to be rehabilitated.
- serial killers/those who have killed many in cold blood (barring the visionary subtype of serial killer)
- people who rape children
- totalitarian dictators
Are the only three types of people I’d argue deserve such harsh punishment.
The death penalty is a rather dark topic, we don’t have to discuss this if you don’t want to. Just curious as to what you’re stance is. Some believe drug dealers should be put to death, I disagree with such ideology. Although I can understand where such an argument could come from (via indirectly killing consumers with product).
Murderers, rapists(forcible rape-not regret “rape”), robbers. I don’t like the idea of a death penalty and don’t support its use, though.
I disagree with robbers as it would on occasion be morally justifiable. Need to feed your family and it is the only option, I’ll become a robber. Additionally, I don’t think the punishment is at all equitable with the crime.
You never kissed a girl before.
Because property = human life. You must be one of two people who actually read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover.
I would argue the poorer one is, and the less they have, the more likely they are to believe it’s a fair punishment.