Politician wants Schwarzenegger to lose citizenship

[AMX]

And if they refuse?

That'd be their own problem.
You know what happens to, say, a wolf (or a canary, or a whale, or whatever) that simply stops eating...
They're adults who can care for themselves. If they decide not to, tough luck, I certainly won't.

In other words, a non objective response. I said objectively. "Because they're the same species as us" is not objective.

It may be subjective, but caring more about the members of the own species than for those of others sounds pretty logical to me.

[Robert Walper]

*snip*

ok, you brainless baboon. you claim that it´s not important to know how to implement something in reality if you want to implement it. that´s probably the single, most moronic thing i´ve heard this month.

So there's no such thing a finding a person guilty beyond any reasonable doubt now, huh? Riight...

I'm evading, eh? How the guilty party is determined guilty is irrelevent, it's the punishment that is the issue dumbass.

if you don´t know how to gain irrefutable proof in a cheap way you obviously can´t do it.

The expenses of finding guilt or innocence is irrelevent (I have no objection to those, nor did I say they are or must be cheap). Although this brings up the interesting question as to why you seem to believe that the method of punishment should determine the effort put into finding someone's innocence or guilt. I'd argue the nature of the crime is a much better criteria from which to base effort. For example, finding a thief is a much lower priority than finding a murderer.

Furthermore, once an individual is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and matches the criteria I've repeatedly told you (remorseless, repeat offender, negligable chance for rehabilitation, etc), you can either execute them or support them by life imprisonment. I say execute, as it's a truely permanent solution to the problem, a stronger deterrent and can be a more satisfactory resolution for affected persons. And it's cheaper(my primary point). Unless you can submit proof that providing valueable resources for a living individual over decades is less expensive than providing for a dead one.

[Robert Walper]

And if they refuse?

That'd be their own problem.
You know what happens to, say, a wolf (or a canary, or a whale, or whatever) that simply stops eating...
They're adults who can care for themselves. If they decide not to, tough luck, I certainly won't.

Then essentially, that would be just a more complicated and messy method of execution.

In other words, a non objective response. I said objectively. "Because they're the same species as us" is not objective.

It may be subjective, but caring more about the members of the own species than for those of others sounds pretty logical to me.

It is, from a species survival point of view, one of the primary instincts of any species. But that isn't what I was asking you. I was asking you "Objectively, what makes a human life more valueable than a dolphin's?" By what crtieria do you determine a human life more valueable than another non human life, objectively? I can think of no reasons whatsoever.

[Knife]

Killing a 'rabid dog' does give society a sence of staifaction and resolution after the fact. If for nothing else, that 'rabid dog' will never again kill someone.

Actually, we try to kill the rabid dog before he kills anyone.

You know, I don't think that's a good analogy. If I kill a rabid dog it's self-defense - I'm doing it to protect myself and society, not to punish the dog. I may even feel sorry for the dog. Ideally, I'd prefer to cure the dog, remove the threat, and let everyone live another day but that's not possible with rabies.

Even if the dog doesn't have rabies and is just a dangerous, vicious, deadly dog it's still largely a matter of self-defense. I'm doing it to protect myself/other from the threat the dog represents, not to inflict punishment and not to gain some sort of satisfaction from killing. If there is some way other than death to neutralize the threat then there is much less justification for killing the dog.

Actually, I was using 'rabid dog' as another way of saying crazed lunitic killer, not really meaning to draw a metaphor with an actual 'rabid' dog. But your point stands. We kill potentially dangerous animals that wander into our habitat, why shouldn't the same moral solution be applied to potentially dangerous human predators?

[Robert Walper]

Actually, I was using 'rabid dog' as another way of saying crazed lunitic killer, not really meaning to draw a metaphor with an actual 'rabid' dog. But your point stands. We kill potentially dangerous animals that wander into our habitat, why shouldn't the same moral solution be applied to potentially dangerous human predators?

Particularily since a human predator is much more dangerous, as said person blends into society, and can be alot more intelligent and therefore more damaging (serial killers, rapists, etc).

A rabid dog doesn't lure a kid into a car with candy...at least with the dog a kid has a greater chance of instinctively recognizing a serious threat.

[AMX]

Then essentially, that would be just a more complicated and messy method of execution.

Almost, but not quite.
I've given them every chance possible; if they want to end their life, who am I to stand in the way?

Also, there's that matter that an innocent has a better chance to survive a few years of labor until his innocence is found out, than if he had already been executed....

It is, from a species survival point of view, one of the primary instincts of any species. But that isn't what I was asking you. I was asking you "Objectively, what makes a human life more valueable than a dolphin's?" By what crtieria do you determine a human life more valueable than another non human life, objectively? I can think of no reasons whatsoever.

One might try to argue that sapient > sentient > rest.

<snip rant about how your lack of compassion for your fellow humans makes you a heartless, unhuman monster>
You can't simply dismiss your "primary instincts".
If there is no objective criterium that makes human life more valuable than other life, so be it.
I'll value it higher anyway, because it is a fundamental part of human nature.

[Darth Wong]

You can't appeal to instincts as a basis for moral judgements; xenophobia is instinctive too. However, you can ask what moral system your opponent subscribes to. One thing about morality is that if you have a logically consistent approach, you should be able to describe your system. If you can't, and your system is basically "I judge each situation as it comes" or a collection of ad nice-sounding hoc rationalizations that mysteriously vary from situation to situation depending on the outcome you want, then you have no system at all. Ergo, it is obvious that anyone with any system has a better system than you do.

[AMX]

You can't appeal to instincts as a basis for moral judgements;

Neither can you simply dismiss them.

xenophobia is instinctive too.

And isn't it nice?[/sarcasm]
You need logic and instict, IMNSHO.

However, you can ask what moral system your opponent subscribes to.

But I don't care about that.

One thing about morality is that if you have a logically consistent approach, you should be able to describe your system.

In theory, yes.

If you can't, and your system is basically "I judge each situation as it comes" or a collection of ad nice-sounding hoc rationalizations that mysteriously vary from situation to situation depending on the outcome you want, then you have no system at all.

Or I'm just friggin bad at making myself understandable, which seems to be the case.

Ergo, it is obvious that anyone with any system has a better system than you do.

I disagree here.
Or is "anyone but me should die" a better moral system than an ill-defined one?

[Darth Wong]

You can't appeal to instincts as a basis for moral judgements;

Neither can you simply dismiss them.

Why not? Is Nature ethical now?

You need logic and instict, IMNSHO.

Instinct, if it plays a role at all, can only play a role in determining what you believe the "design goal" of an ethical system should be. Allowing it to poison individual situational judgements would make a mockery of the whole concept of systemic ethics.

If you can't, and your system is basically "I judge each situation as it comes" or a collection of ad nice-sounding hoc rationalizations that mysteriously vary from situation to situation depending on the outcome you want, then you have no system at all.

Or I'm just friggin bad at making myself understandable, which seems to be the case.

If you admit that you cannot describe your ethical system, it is a foregone conclusion that you don't have one. A philosophical system must be described in order to exist.

Ergo, it is obvious that anyone with any system has a better system than you do.

I disagree here.

Or is "anyone but me should die" a better moral system than an ill-defined one?

That's not a system, you idiot. That's a judgement, whereas a system is something you use in order to generate judgements. This is like confusing the image on a computer screen with the computer itself.

You don't even have any idea what I'm talking about, do you? Hell, I wasn't even talking about you in particular; I was pointing out a general rule that should be applied in ethical debates.

[AMX]

Been trying to think a bit... and apart from "I sure post a lot of shit when I'm annoyed", my conclusion is that I appear to be using not an abstract philosophical system for moral guidance, but a set of basic theses, applied using some very basic logic.
Trying a quick, dirty, and incomplete analysis...
- It's everyone's duty to respect everybody else's rights.
- Death and suffering should be avoided if reasonably possible.
- Extremism is wrong, wrong, wrong.
- Suicide is (worse than) surrender.
- Generally, Humans > Animals > Plants > Inanimate objects, the position of AIs, ETs and ETCs being determined when necessary, exceptions apply if warranted, read instructions before use, no warranty.

@DW: post ignored. you're replying to a pile of shit designed by me to get myself in trouble.
Yes, I'm deranged, and no, I won't see help.
I'll just try to start using the upper end of my body to post.