India to execute 4 rapists

[Simon_Jester]

Setting aside that he was being explicitly evasive about who he was addressing period (that includes Valdemar), there simply is no way of positively addressing someone who uses Poisoning the Well tactics. The best way of handling that fallacy, IMO, is to not play their game. They have already made up their mind, and you should make it clear to everyone that their words are meaningless crap, born not from logic but emotion and prejudice. Make them drink their poison, so to speak. If someone decides to argue the point and shows that they can do so rationally, that's fine. They can be convinced or convincing, depending on how it plays.

...OK, you sound really worked up about this Poisoning The Well thing with the Gratuitous Capitalization. The problem I'm having is that "poisoning the well" refers to something specific character assassination.

I'm not sure it counts when someone makes a remark like "XYZ will probably come do ABC now" when XYZ has literally done that, many times, in the past.

Fact is, I have always made it clear I can change my mind about the death penalty, or anything else you might want to talk to me about. But you aren't going to do that by going for Ad Hominem attacks before I even come into the conversation.

Who, me?

Who are you talking to again?

[Formless]

...OK, you sound really worked up about this Poisoning The Well thing with the Gratuitous Capitalization. The problem I'm having is that "poisoning the well" refers to something specific character assassination.

No, it doesn't. The fallacy is exactly the same if the generalized form of "you" is used. See the example from Nizkor: "Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart." Emphasis mine.

And yes, it does matter. More-so than even other forms of Ad Hominem, its priming people to accept your prejudices and attempting to intimidate people from even trying to argue the point. It must be called out as a matter of honesty, just like lies are. The fact that it didn't intimidate people here in this thread is good.

In fact, I'm glad it was brought up that we do this to Creationists, conspiracy theorists and other such groups, because half the time I see it there is no in-context reason to mock them besides patting ourselves on the back. If such people start making their arguments, then its no problem. But they don't, more often than not.

I'm not sure it counts when someone makes a remark like "XYZ will probably come do ABC now" when XYZ has literally done that, many times, in the past.

It does when the group is preemptively characterized as a bunch of whiners, no smarter than conspiracy theorists or Creationists.

Who, me?

Simon, have you ever heard of an indefinite pronoun? You are literally the only person I have ever met who speaks english as his first language that has a hard time understanding that sentence structure. So no, I am not talking about you specifically.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Eh, I'm not in the mood to go more in-depth into this, but Simon's original response to me was misread. I thought he was equating my statement to a strawman with the lying example which I picked up on in a rushed response. I see what he's getting at, however, my original position was only ever in the context of capital punishment, or rather my position against it in all scenarios. I bring that up because, as others mentioned in this thread and as I've seen on other forums and in RL, people will happily introduce caveats to this rule for those who stir up a particular emotional reaction in them, be it child molesters or serial killers of a particularly twisted nature. My comment was just to indicate that if you're against the death penalty on principle, then no crime, no matter how heinous, should be punished by it.

Which then led to the introduction of the state sanctioned "murder" in warfare example, which, I reiterate, is something I will accept when it cannot be resolved in other ways. That does not make me pro-killing, just that I understand that we can't live in a world where some people will take advantage of such a pacifistic philosophy and be able to ensure everyone's safety. So I can accept that it is necessary, but not be for it or approve of it having to be used in such circumstances, just as self-defence in a home invasion situation may end in someone being killed inadvertently etc.

[Simon_Jester]

And yes, it does matter. More-so than even other forms of Ad Hominem, its priming people to accept your prejudices and attempting to intimidate people from even trying to argue the point. It must be called out as a matter of honesty, just like lies are. The fact that it didn't intimidate people here in this thread is good.

Personally, I think you're suffering from delusions of persecution here because opinions you identify with are being labeled as ridiculous. But keep on with the fallacy-hunt. Your example discourages other people from engaging in similarly stupid "I refuse to address your criticism because I think people who call me bad names are committing logical fallacies!" tactics.

Who, me?

Simon, have you ever heard of an indefinite pronoun? You are literally the only person I have ever met who speaks english as his first language that has a hard time understanding that sentence structure. So no, I am not talking about you specifically.

Formless, if you can't see the ambiguity in writing an entire paragraph in the generic-you format as part of a reply to a specific person, then kindly shut up and resume your posting after you've taken a few more English composition courses.

It would hardly be the first time you've falsely ascribed an opinion to me personally.

[Formless]

Personally, I think you're suffering from delusions of persecution here because opinions you identify with are being labeled as ridiculous. But keep on with the fallacy-hunt. Your example discourages other people from engaging in similarly stupid "I refuse to address your criticism because I think people who call me bad names are committing logical fallacies!" tactics.

An Ad Hominem attack =! name calling. Stramanning much? I'm pretty sure you are familiar with that fallacy, so I won't explain it. And simply labeling what I am doing a "delusion of persecution" and "Fallacy Hunting" is toeing the line of the former by the way. I happen to find something offensively illogical in the OP, I call it as it is. Seriously, Simon, I didn't just invent the term poisoning the well out of thin air. What about it do you find hard to understand? The fact that it can target groups of people as well as individuals? Because I do believe I just explained that it can.

And by the way, I haven't even given my stance on the Death Penalty yet. I did that on purpose, because my stance isn't a Human Rights stance, and that's the point. Do you get it yet? All I am here for is to point out that the OP is acting like a dishonest asshole, and that his post was priming people for exactly this type of accusation and dismissal. You agreed with me in the beginning that the Human Rights crowd was ill defined. Now look at what you are saying, and tell me you haven't fallen into that trap.

Formless, if you can't see the ambiguity in writing an entire paragraph in the generic-you format as part of a reply to a specific person, then kindly shut up and resume your posting after you've taken a few more English composition courses.

It would hardly be the first time you've falsely ascribed an opinion to me personally.

Oh, piss off you self centered wanker. Up until now I have yet to ascribe any opinions to you at all in this thread. This place isn't a university and I don't write everything like its an academic essay-- most people on forums don't. Again, I have simply never seen someone who spoke english as their first language fail to realize when someone is employing the generic "you". In context, it only makes sense in the generic "you". Yes, I got a bit annoyed that I had to explain it, because I never thought I would have to. But that's all I was saying, to answer your question of whether or not I was addressing you personally with my statement.

Are you just here to start a pissing contest? Or are you just getting agitated over genuine attempts to explain just what I meant; or likewise to explain what I take issue with? Because your tone is degenerating quite fast from "reasonable" to "dickish". Take a step back, and realize that this isn't about your argument with Valdemar, this isn't me accusing you of anything (even where I got frustrated at your misunderstanding me). But if you want to start accusing me of having a persecution complex or something, that you want to defend the logic of someone who equates supporters of Human Rights (a concept far larger than just the Death Penalty debate) with conspiracy theorists and creationists, then I have no problem calling you an idiot and an ass.

[mr friendly guy]

Setting aside that he was being explicitly evasive about who he was addressing period (that includes Valdemar), there simply is no way of positively addressing someone who uses Poisoning the Well tactics. The best way of handling that fallacy, IMO, is to not play their game. They have already made up their mind, and you should make it clear to everyone that their words are meaningless crap, born not from logic but emotion and prejudice. Make them drink their poison, so to speak. If someone decides to argue the point and shows that they can do so rationally, that's fine. They can be convinced or convincing, depending on how it plays.

Ah, its lets play the strawman crowd instead of poisoning the well huh.

When I addressed Valdemar's argument, I put his name in it so there can be no ambiguity about who I am addressing. Maybe I should link to a post explaining abbreviations since using AV instead of Valdemar confused the hell out of you.

If you didn't know who I meant by the human rights crowd, I certainly clarified it by the next post with a link as an example, so no excuses here about being evasive buddy. But hey I will expand on it. You know when you hear these stories on the radio where person X has been sentenced to die, and then the reporter will then cut in for some human rights group, eg Amnesty International etc to say their piece which consist of their anti-death penalty arguments. Sure you do. Those people. That's who I meant by the human rights crowd, not specifically members of this board. Though of course since some eg Scorpion identified himself as being part of that group after I made that statement, so clearly he understood enough of what I meant.

When I made that statement about people's abstract values being more important than the people they are supposed to support, I said straight off the bat when you asked, that it wasn't specific to a member of this board, but it does seem some board members do behave in that manner.

You might be able to say who I was addressing was not clear initially (like Simon Jester), but you can't fucking accuse me of being evasive when I clarified who I meant (or didn't mean) in the next post in answer to your question. That is just outright exaggeration on your part. Hey does this count as poisoning the well?

BTW - I sure hope you have words with Scorpion after he described the public as having a "thirst for revenge". Sounds like poisoning the well to me rather than addressing any reason why the other side wants these murderers and rapists executed. How best to describe it. Oh I know. "They have already made up their mind, and you should make it clear to everyone that their words are meaningless crap, born not from logic but emotion and prejudice", and "just more poison in the well to discourage people from disagreeing with" it. Obviously those people who think these murders should be executed are just having a "thirst for revenge."

[Thanas]

Oh, and the human rights crowd will start whining in 3,2,1...

I was unaware that holding a consistent human rights position is whining now. Care to elaborate on that one?

If you didn't know who I meant by the human rights crowd, I certainly clarified it by the next post with a link as an example, so no excuses here about being evasive buddy. But hey I will expand on it. You know when you hear these stories on the radio where person X has been sentenced to die, and then the reporter will then cut in for some human rights group, eg Amnesty International etc to say their piece which consist of their anti-death penalty arguments. Sure you do. Those people. That's who I meant by the human rights crowd, not specifically members of this board. Though of course since some eg Scorpion identified himself as being part of that group after I made that statement, so clearly he understood enough of what I meant.

I fail to see what your problem is with Amnesty International.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh, and the human rights crowd will start whining in 3,2,1...

I was unaware that holding a consistent human rights position is whining now. Care to elaborate on that one?

You mean they don't complain when a particular person is sentence to death?

Of course if you use whining in the sense as "complaining in a childish fashion", I could make a case where they use a lot of circle jerks where they state their premise without justifying it (for example can they justify no execution vs execution using any ethical theories, yeah didn't think so), or using numerous red herrings eg executing them won't fix the problem of sexual assaults in India and we need cultural change (nothing is stopping the pro capital punishment side argue for those cultural change as well), or my personal favourite, will executing these guys bring the victims back (neither will not executing them, so its pointless to argue this as an advantage of not executing), then yes, I can construe these type of pseudoarguments as childish, ie whining.

I fail to see what your problem is with Amnesty International.

If AI criticised some human rights abuses on governments, great knock yourself out. Talking about torture. Absolutely right, it should be called out.

However I find their anti capital punishment stance has the unfortunate effect (whether they intend it or not) of giving the perpetrators more rights than the victims? As I said earlier, I find that they hold these abstract principles (killing is wrong) higher than the people they are supposed to benefit, we end up with this situation, where victim families (or anyone in the public who advocate the death penalty) are described as interested in revenge, where their feelings don't seem to matter next to the abstract principles. Since these principles reflect morality, should they not aim to maximise human utility and happiness. Doesn't seem to do a good job does it?

I also find their stance against China's one child policy another example of this. Lets just let people have more kids because its a human right and lets not dwell too deep into things like how will we support them when we aren't rich ourselves. I guess if we protest enough, the right to education, decent standard of living etc will just appear through magical economics or something.

Oh, another amusing face about AI is that if they say, support the human rights of side B against Big Bad side A, they will seem to forget to mention that side B is also a homophobic organisation who preaches against interracial marriage. I guess its best not to confuse the folks back home and ignore the attack on human rights by side B. Oh, try and guess who is side A and side B.

[AniThyng]

I'm talking in the context of judicial law, but as it happens, I'm against killing in general, unless it is to protect more innocents in historical scenarios such as WWII.

The only other alternative to protect innocents from certain types of rapist is to either execute them or imprison them forever*.

I honestly don't see why this is necessarily so different an argument - in this particular case we know the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, so the question of "do we have the right guy" is moot - and we accept that in some situations it is acceptable to murder, even when the victims are not directly guilty. This is just another one of those.

*If I had my way, I'd compromise on no capital punishment for the first conviction, but if said criminal was released from prison and is arrested again for another capital crime, so be it.

[Thanas]

You mean they don't complain when a particular person is sentence to death?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/india-de ... 2013-09-13
Full press release. They complained plenty.

Of course if you use whining in the sense as "complaining in a childish fashion", I could make a case where they use a lot of circle jerks where they state their premise without justifying it (for example can they justify no execution vs execution using any ethical theories, yeah didn't think so), or using numerous red herrings eg executing them won't fix the problem of sexual assaults in India and we need cultural change (nothing is stopping the pro capital punishment side argue for those cultural change as well), or my personal favourite, will executing these guys bring the victims back (neither will not executing them, so its pointless to argue this as an advantage of not executing), then yes, I can construe these type of pseudoarguments as childish, ie whining.

This is not what they are doing.

If AI criticised some human rights abuses on governments, great knock yourself out

So you should have no problem with them calling out the dictatorship of China then.

However I find their anti capital punishment stance has the unfortunate effect (whether they intend it or not) of giving the perpetrators more rights than the victims?

Bull. By that same argument you could dismiss any kind of fair trial. After all, it gives the perpetrators far more rights than any of their victims ever had.

As I said earlier, I find that they hold these abstract principles (killing is wrong) higher than the people they are supposed to benefit, we end up with this situation, where victim families (or anyone in the public who advocate the death penalty) are described as interested in revenge, where their feelings don't seem to matter next to the abstract principles.

Not a single Amnesty statement blames the families of the victims.

Since these principles reflect morality, should they not aim to maximise human utility and happiness. Doesn't seem to do a good job does it?

Those principles are a really bad system to base morality on. With them you can justify any atrocity whatsoever.

I also find their stance against China's one child policy another example of this. Lets just let people have more kids because its a human right and lets not dwell too deep into things like how will we support them when we aren't rich ourselves. I guess if we protest enough, the right to education, decent standard of living etc will just appear through magical economics or something.

They are not criticizing people for choosing not to have any more children. They are criticizing the dictatorship of China for forcing this on their populace without giving them a say.

Oh, another amusing face about AI is that if they say, support the human rights of side B against Big Bad side A, they will seem to forget to mention that side B is also a homophobic organisation who preaches against interracial marriage. I guess its best not to confuse the folks back home and ignore the attack on human rights by side B. Oh, try and guess who is side A and side B.

Falun Gong. And last I checked, having homophobic views is not a justification for being persecuted by the Government. So I again fail to see what AI is doing wrong here.

[mr friendly guy]

You mean they don't complain when a particular person is sentence to death?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/india-de ... 2013-09-13
Full press release. They complained plenty.

That's my point. They do whine. I am sorry, complain.

This is not what they are doing.

This should be good Thanas. Lets have a look again what I wrote

Of course if you use whining in the sense as "complaining in a childish fashion", I could make a case where they use a lot of circle jerks where they state their premise without justifying it (for example can they justify no execution vs execution using any ethical theories, yeah didn't think so), or using numerous red herrings eg executing them won't fix the problem of sexual assaults in India and we need cultural change (nothing is stopping the pro capital punishment side argue for those cultural change as well), or my personal favourite, will executing these guys bring the victims back (neither will not executing them, so its pointless to argue this as an advantage of not executing), then yes, I can construe these type of pseudoarguments as childish, ie whining.

From your very link - opening paragraph : "Far-reaching procedural and institutional reform, and not the death penalty, is needed to tackle the endemic problem of violence against women in India, Amnesty International said today after four men convicted of the December 2012 gang-rape were sentenced to death by a court in New Delhi."

Sounds like what I accused them of doing, ie we need cultural, er sorry procedural and institutional reform even though nothing is stopping the pro death penalty arguing that as well ie its not contradictory to having pro capital punishment position. Not a very great argument if you are relying on red herrings.

So you should have no problem with them calling out the dictatorship of China then.

Correct, I have no problem with them calling China out. I do however have a problem where calling people out is very selective, ie you aren't applying the same standards. We both know they will call out developing nations at sporting events eg China in 2008 Olympics, and Sri Lanka in the cricket world cup 2007 for human right abuses but won't do the same to sporting events in developed nations. Does AI call for boycotts of US sporting events for torture, er I mean pressured interrogation or the fact they do business with human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, or is it only China when it does business with unsavoury regimes?

Bull. By that same argument you could dismiss any kind of fair trial. After all, it gives the perpetrators far more rights than any of their victims ever had.

Aside from the fact we won't know the perps are guilty without a fair trial. But fine, if you want to be picky I will rephrase my statement. Amnesty's position whether intentional or not ends up giving the perpetrators after they have been found guilty more rights than the victim.

Not a single Amnesty statement blames the families of the victims.

Oh. I find it insulting when they described people wanting the death penalty as simply wanting revenge. Your above link mentions that all the Death Penalty will do is " nothing except short-term revenge". I don't know, but I find it pretty insulting wanting justice to be described in that manner.

Those principles are a really bad system to base morality on. With them you can justify any atrocity whatsoever.

So this now begs the question, why is the feelings of the victims (and their relatives) not important? Please note no one is claiming their feelings are the most important things only, * but it seems you don't even consider that important at all.

* for example if the victims were of a type which wanted to let the perp go free, the utility of the rest of society (say in terms of safety) can outweigh the feelings of the victims and a more ethical decision would be at least jail or attempt reform to the perp.

They are not criticizing people for choosing not to have any more children. They are criticizing the dictatorship of China for forcing this on their populace without giving them a say.

I know. The point is that they don't seem to give a shit about overpopulation, poverty due to limited resources etc, because their ideology will prevent them acting in such a manner. A case where dedication to the abstract principle costs more harm than the benefits it brings. Unless you think a) a country which is currently poor will benefit from having more people before it becomes a middle income to rich country or b) this can somehow be accomplished to the same extent without some coercion.

Falun Gong. And last I checked, having homophobic views is not a justification for being persecuted by the Government. So I again fail to see what AI is doing wrong here.

Aside from being somewhat dishonest er I mean inaccurate in how they describe one group. After all shouldn't people who care about human rights decide which causes their limited resources should go to? They might want to donate their money to some other charitable cause which doesn't support such a group. Nowhere did I claim nor imply in this case they were doing anything else wrong aside from being dishonest. You know the part where I said "they will seem to forget to mention..."

Look, if I said Thanas you need to support this fellow historian which was jailed in this country for giving a contradictory account to what the country's schools teach of history, and then later you found out that it was David Irving jailed for Holocaust denial, you might at the very least consider me disingenuous to conveniently forget to mention those facets, no. That's what Amnesty is doing.

[Thanas]

That's my point. They do whine. I am sorry, complain.

Human rights organization is complaining about what they consider human right abuses. Which is kinda their job? You are lambasting them because they do not hold the same moral values as you do. So I posit to you - who is the one whining here?

Of course if you use whining in the sense as "complaining in a childish fashion", I could make a case where they use a lot of circle jerks where they state their premise without justifying it (for example can they justify no execution vs execution using any ethical theories, yeah didn't think so), or using numerous red herrings eg executing them won't fix the problem of sexual assaults in India and we need cultural change (nothing is stopping the pro capital punishment side argue for those cultural change as well), or my personal favourite, will executing these guys bring the victims back (neither will not executing them, so its pointless to argue this as an advantage of not executing), then yes, I can construe these type of pseudoarguments as childish, ie whining.

From your very link - opening paragraph : "Far-reaching procedural and institutional reform, and not the death penalty, is needed to tackle the endemic problem of violence against women in India, Amnesty International said today after four men convicted of the December 2012 gang-rape were sentenced to death by a court in New Delhi."

Sounds like what I accused them of doing, ie we need cultural, er sorry procedural and institutional reform even though nothing is stopping the pro death penalty arguing that as well ie its not contradictory to having pro capital punishment position. Not a very great argument if you are relying on red herrings.

Wrong, because what you are missing is that they are doing that in addition to attacking the death penalty. Your post reads like a lot of complaining because they *gasp* dare to attack the death penalty in itself.

Correct, I have no problem with them calling China out. I do however have a problem where calling people out is very selective, ie you aren't applying the same standards. We both know they will call out developing nations at sporting events eg China in 2008 Olympics, and Sri Lanka in the cricket world cup 2007 for human right abuses but won't do the same to sporting events in developed nations. Does AI call for boycotts of US sporting events for torture, er I mean pressured interrogation or the fact they do business with human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, or is it only China when it does business with unsavoury regimes?

They do call out the US regularly. So I don't know what you are even saying here. Fact is, they attack the US on a regular basis. That they attack China and Sri Lanka at the Olympics is due to the fact that this is the only thing were the average Joe is watching those nations on TV.

Aside from the fact we won't know the perps are guilty without a fair trial. But fine, if you want to be picky I will rephrase my statement. Amnesty's position whether intentional or not ends up giving the perpetrators after they have been found guilty more rights than the victim.

And the same is true for any appeals process. This is pointless complaining on your part. Every part of being a civilized society gives them ipso facto more rights than their victims ever did.

Oh. I find it insulting when they described people wanting the death penalty as simply wanting revenge.

Oh please, they are not describing them as wanting it, they are saying that this is all the death penalty will accomplish. They are in fact very careful not ascribing any kind of motives to the victims families.

So this now begs the question, why is the feelings of the victims (and their relatives) not important? Please note no one is claiming their feelings are the most important things only, * but it seems you don't even consider that important at all.

I do consider them important. I don't consider them to be more important than universal rights. I would have no problems with the state listening to them when it comes to prison terms etc., but I would like to think we have evolved past the stage of eye for an eye.

I know. The point is that they don't seem to give a shit about overpopulation, poverty due to limited resources etc, because their ideology will prevent them acting in such a manner.

False dichotomy. Because they criticize the state constricting human rights does not mean they support overpopulation or want it.

A case where dedication to the abstract principle costs more harm than the benefits it brings. Unless you think a) a country which is currently poor will benefit from having more people before it becomes a middle income to rich country or b) this can somehow be accomplished to the same extent without some coercion.

I heard human rights are not just sacrificial lambs to the greater good. Instead, they are supposed to be inviolable. Otherwise you can justify everything with the greater good.

Aside from being somewhat dishonest er I mean inaccurate in how they describe one group. After all shouldn't people who care about human rights decide which causes their limited resources should go to? They might want to donate their money to some other charitable cause which doesn't support such a group. Nowhere did I claim nor imply in this case they were doing anything else wrong aside from being dishonest. You know the part where I said "they will seem to forget to mention..."

So what, only good and decent people now get advocates? Besides, if you do start your defence with "They are scumbags but...." nobody will listen to you. And furthermore, I see no chinese apologist ever mentioning all the other atrocities the chinese state commits regularly. Shouldn't they be prefacing every single one of their statements with "We know that we commit X number of atrocities, including XXXXXS, but". In short, this is just a simple tu quoque and a pretty bad one at that because on the one side we have a state with all the resources it has and on the other side we have a persecuted group. The playing field is not level and fair by default, instead it will always be slanted to the advantage of the state.

[mr friendly guy]

That's my point. They do whine. I am sorry, complain.

Human rights organization is complaining about what they consider human right abuses. Which is kinda their job? You are lambasting them because they do not hold the same moral values as you do. So I posit to you - who is the one whining here?

By that logic I can go...

The state is upholding their laws and what they consider justice, which is of course supported by the majority of their population. Which is kinda their job? AI is lambasting them because they do not hold the same moral values as the majority of the people of Inida. So I posit to you - who is the one whining here?

Thus under the statement, we (human rights group and myself) are both whining. Ha ha ha.

So they are perfectly entitled to whine about what they consider human right abuses. Just as I am accurate in describing it as whining.

Wrong, because what you are missing is that they are doing that in addition to attacking the death penalty. Your post reads like a lot of complaining because they *gasp* dare to attack the death penalty in itself.

Actually my post reads as stated that they are using fallacious reasoning, again. Not because they dare to attack the death penalty, again. You miss the point that "the addition" to attacking the death penalty, is being linked to it, when there is nothing really stopping DP advocates saying the same thing.

They do call out the US regularly. So I don't know what you are even saying here. Fact is, they attack the US on a regular basis. That they attack China and Sri Lanka at the Olympics is due to the fact that this is the only thing were the average Joe is watching those nations on TV.

The same logic applies to them using very prestigious sporting events to attack the US or any other developed nations as well, that being its a thing the average Joe is going to be watching. In fact since you ascribe them attacking sporting events as what sounds like a tactical measure, it would make sense for them to do the same as well.

And the same is true for any appeals process. This is pointless complaining on your part. Every part of being a civilized society gives them ipso facto more rights than their victims ever did.

I could nitpick and say that the victim will also have a right to fair trial if they ever charged with anything (else), so it seems pointless going down this tangent. However I will prefer the following way. The best way to guarantee that we have the correct perpetrator is a fair trial, and if according to how you interpret it, it gives more rights to the perp than the victim it can't be helped because we need to identify who the perpetrator is. However after all is said and done, why then do we have to continue to give more rights to the victim? And if you do admit we do give the perpetrator more rights than the victim, why are you getting upset with me for pointing that out. Shouldn't you be saying "so what?, instead of "bull.""

Oh please, they are not describing them as wanting it, they are saying that this is all the death penalty will accomplish. They are in fact very careful not ascribing any kind of motives to the victims families.

Come on. They are saying all it will do is accomplish short term revenge. Pointless to say that unless someone gasp actually wants short term revenge. I will give them one thing though. They are a bit more subtle than some of the other anti death penalty people in this thread and in RL.

I do consider them important. I don't consider them to be more important than universal rights. I would have no problems with the state listening to them when it comes to prison terms etc., but I would like to think we have evolved past the stage of eye for an eye.

But Thanas, why prison terms? Isn't freedom a universal right? Don't we deny people certain rights as part of how society functions. Do we not deny people the right of freedom when we imprison them? In parts of Europe is not freedom of speech limited by Holocaust denial laws? Why is it in these cases some universal rights limited in certain cases, but the right to life is not. Either rights are universal or they aren't, and certain times we may feel its beneficial to limit them, no?

If you consider these rights more important than the victims, then I hope you unlike Formless don't get angry when I point out that human rights groups hold these principles higher than the people they are supposed to benefit.

BTW Nice eye for an eye jibe. If we didn't move past eye for an eye, we would be advocating the Indian rapists would be receiving exactly what they did to their victim. However they aren't. They are advocating a death which causes them less trauma than what they gave their victim. So we did move past eye for an eye, but that never stops the humans crowd bringing it up.

False dichotomy. Because they criticize the state constricting human rights does not mean they support overpopulation or want it.

That's like the Greens in Australia saying we want to close the nuclear reactor but when asked about the use of nuclear isotopes for medical purposes, say they still want that (even though we can't have them if you close down the reactor). You literally cannot have it both ways in such a scenario. AI can go as far as saying we don't want overpopulation but without some economic coercion by the state (which they oppose), the problem isn't going be tackled that effectively. You literally cannot have it both ways.

I heard human rights are not just sacrificial lambs to the greater good. Instead, they are supposed to be inviolable. Otherwise you can justify everything with the greater good.

In which case see above and I will reiterate...
a) why are some rights like freedom sacrificed when we imprison criminals, something you have absolutely no problem with
b) why do people get angry when I point out you hold these principles higher than the people they are supposed to benefit, especially when you pointed out the perp gets more rights than the victims.

So what, only good and decent people now get advocates?

Now, now, no one ever said that. Amnesty is perfectly free to advocate on their behalf, but donors may choose not donate. The best way to do that is give donors accurate information. For an organisation which is against media censorship, one would think they would have no problems with doing this, unless of course its only bad to skewer the information by government censorship, and somehow ok to do it by conveniently leaving out some details.

The point is, no matter how you spin this - they were caught being incompetent with their fact gathering at best, dishonest at worse. And this is just in a situation I know a little bit about. I wonder how much more skewering of the truth they did in other claims especially in areas where I (and the average Joe) wouldn't know much about.

Besides, if you do start your defence with "They are scumbags but...." nobody will listen to you.

That's kind of the point. Which amuses me because it implies that almost all donors to AI don't hold such "high" values as AI.

And furthermore, I see no chinese apologist ever mentioning all the other atrocities the chinese state commits regularly. Shouldn't they be prefacing every single one of their statements with "We know that we commit X number of atrocities, including XXXXXS, but". In short, this is just a simple tu quoque and a pretty bad one at that because on the one side we have a state with all the resources it has and on the other side we have a persecuted group. The playing field is not level and fair by default, instead it will always be slanted to the advantage of the state.

Fortunately the accusations I levelled against Falun Gong in this thread aren't the same ones the Chinese government are levelling (eg intimidating scientists who disagree with them) and focussed on ones straight from the horses mouth so to speak because its not in dispute between both sides. So I haven't actually brought the massive advantages (ie information gathering) from the Chinese state into this, and already you pretty much admit that people might choose not to donate to this particular cause. Not that my original point was to tell people not to donate, but to point out AI is being disingenuous here.

[Metahive]

People who argue for the reduction of rights of defendants really need to remind themselves of why such were instated in the first place. Their purpose isn't to spite the victims or to make it easier for evildoers to escape justice, they're here to make sure that human fallibility and shortsightedness is kept to as minimal an influence as possible. When it comes to crimes, especially the really hideous ones, it's a basic human reflex to seek out obvious targets and then close one's mind to all evidence that might be to the contrary to inflict vengeance. Those who are pro-DP should even be stronger in favor of it because death is an irreversible condition.

The state is upholding their laws and what they consider justice, which is of course supported by the majority of their population. Which is kinda their job? AI is lambasting them because they do not hold the same moral values as the majority of the people of Inida. So I posit to you - who is the one whining here?

I find it off-putting that you find taking offense at barbaric practices to be "whining". Hey, imperial Russia had popular approval too when they inflicted their pogroms upon the Jews. Were the people who condemned those "whining" too? Is it "whining" to bemoan North Korea's abysmal human rights record just because it's legal according to NK's laws?

Adopting cultural relativism is a weak pillar to prop one's own argument up on.

[mr friendly guy]

People who argue for the reduction of rights of defendants really need to remind themselves of why such were instated in the first place. Their purpose isn't to spite the victims or to make it easier for evildoers to escape justice, they're here to make sure that human fallibility and shortsightedness is kept to as minimal an influence as possible.

In regards to minimising human fallibility, that's what the rule of law is for and why they have a fair trial, so we can identify who the perpertrator is. Afterwards when sentencing I don't see how giving the perpetrator more rights than the victims benefits, and trying to spin it as a case of preventing human fallibility (when it should have been done EARLIER at the actual trial) kind of misses the point.

When it comes to crimes, especially the really hideous ones, it's a basic human reflex to seek out obvious targets and then close one's mind to all evidence that might be to the contrary to inflict vengeance. Those who are pro-DP should even be stronger in favor of it because death is an irreversible condition.

That's what the rule of law is for. Do you seriously see me advocating for the DP everytime with a similar crime regardless of the evidence presented? If I thought the evidence was dodgy, court corrupt etc etc I would question whether its appropriate. Hint when the prosecutor says "this guy did it," and the defense says "yeah he did, but he is poor <insert sob story here> I think its fair to say that the chances that this guy is innocent is very low. This isn't like an episode of Walker Texas Ranger where the defendent is a fall guy who has been coerced by the real killer.

In case you missed it, I wait for the trial to be over before calling for death to a perp. As you say, one can close one's mind to the evidence that might be contrary, but its a bit harder to go that route after all parties have had their day in court.

I find it off-putting that you find taking offense at barbaric practices to be "whining".

I find it off putting that people are describing it as barbaric. I bet you will have no trouble defending killing in war with reasons such as maximising human life etc. I am sure if you apply the same determination you could most probably do the same thing here.

Hey, imperial Russia had popular approval too when they inflicted their pogroms upon the Jews. Were the people who condemned those "whining" too? Is it "whining" to bemoan North Korea's abysmal human rights record just because it's legal according to NK's laws?

I could of course point out those who use the "majority decides whats right" argument fails against "law of the jungle" type counters (IIRC it was Peter Singer who formulated that argument), however that would be somewhat tangential. Since it was Thanas who felt I was whining for complainingg against AI "doing their job", thus I pointed out by that logic the Indian government is also doing its job (supporting the will of the majority of its population) and by his logic AI's complaint against them will also count as whining. Feel free to take that premise (ie complaining against people doing their job = whining) with him since he posited that.

[Metahive]

In regards to minimising human fallibility, that's what the rule of law is for and why they have a fair trial, so we can identify who the perpertrator is. Afterwards when sentencing I don't see how giving the perpetrator more rights than the victims benefits, and trying to spin it as a case of preventing human fallibility (when it should have been done EARLIER at the actual trial) kind of misses the point.

The victim is dead. What benefits could he/she receive if the perp dies too? Is there a god of vengeance that needs appeasing?

That's what the rule of law is for. Do you seriously see me advocating for the DP everytime with a similar crime regardless of the evidence presented? If I thought the evidence was dodgy, court corrupt etc etc I would question whether its appropriate. Hint when the prosecutor says "this guy did it," and the defense says "yeah he did, but he is poor <insert sob story here> I think its fair to say that the chances that this guy is innocent is very low. This isn't like an episode of Walker Texas Ranger where the defendent is a fall guy who has been coerced by the real killer.

In case you missed it, I wait for the trial to be over before calling for death to a perp. As you say, one can close one's mind to the evidence that might be contrary, but its a bit harder to go that route after all parties have had their day in court.

Sorry if I do not share your absolute faith in human courts to always find the truth. As long as that's not established I will not even begin to think about giving them the power to kill people off no matter how "obviously" guilty the perp is.

I find it off putting that people are describing it as barbaric. I bet you will have no trouble defending killing in war with reasons such as maximising human life etc. I am sure if you apply the same determination you could most probably do the same thing here.

False equivalence. Enemy soldiers =/= restrained and imprisoned criminals. And sorry if you find that off-putting, but what else is the killing of defenseless people?

I could of course point out those who use the "majority decides whats right" argument fails against "law of the jungle" type counters (IIRC it was Peter Singer who formulated that argument), however that would be somewhat tangential. Since it was Thanas who felt I was whining for complainingg against AI "doing their job", thus I pointed out by that logic the Indian government is also doing its job (supporting the will of the majority of its population) and by his logic AI's complaint against them will also count as whining. Feel free to take that premise (ie complaining against people doing their job = whining) with him since he posited that.

There's no answer to my point in there.

[AniThyng]

The victim is dead. What benefits could he/she receive if the perp dies too? Is there a god of vengeance that needs appeasing?

The reasoning behind defining some crimes as capital crimes is to ensure that they bear the heaviest penalty that a human court can dispense to the convicted - death, and like funerals, is intended for the benefit of the living, not the dead. I mean if we carry this too far the other way, might as well let them go, I'm sure the stress of the trial and the realization that they are the scum of the earth is enough punishment.

False equivalence. Enemy soldiers =/= restrained and imprisoned criminals. And sorry if you find that off-putting, but what else is the killing of defenseless people?

So we agree that by definition, military forces engaged with enemies that have no hope of effective retaliation are murderers? Should we ban the use of unsporting innovations such as body armor, stealth, ECM and anything that might render impotent enemy weapons so that they are never "defenseless"?

[salm]

The victim is dead. What benefits could he/she receive if the perp dies too? Is there a god of vengeance that needs appeasing?

The reasoning behind defining some crimes as capital crimes is to ensure that they bear the heaviest penalty that a human court can dispense to the convicted - death, and like funerals, is intended for the benefit of the living, not the dead. I mean if we carry this too far the other way, might as well let them go, I'm sure the stress of the trial and the realization that they are the scum of the earth is enough punishment.

This isn´t correct. A human court can dispense penalties a lot heavier than the death penalty. Life long torture or death by torture, killing the criminals familiy and so on can be considered worse than simple death. But a lot of advocates of the death penalty will find that "cruel and unusal".
The death penalty isn´t some magical end point on the scale of penalties it´s just a threshold that many people are not willing to cross just like death by torture is another threshold that even many death penalty advocates are not willing to cross.

[mr friendly guy]

The victim is dead. What benefits could he/she receive if the perp dies too? Is there a god of vengeance that needs appeasing?

Why do you think the only victim is the dead person?
Why do you think the only benefit is to the dead person, as opposed to society, their family etc?

Sorry if I do not share your absolute faith in human courts to always find the truth. As long as that's not established I will not even begin to think about giving them the power to kill people off no matter how "obviously" guilty the perp is.

If I thought there was a problem, of course I wouldn't say they should kill the accused. However I fail to see how you can keep a straight face and say they might be wrong when both sides admit this person did it, and not even the defendent is trying to use accusations of coercion.

False equivalence. Enemy soldiers =/= restrained and imprisoned criminals. And sorry if you find that off-putting, but what else is the killing of defenseless people?

So you find euthanasia off putting too then. Glad to know. But why should it make a difference if these guys are restrained or not restrained. Surely if killing is wrong period, it shouldn't matter under what circumstances. The point is, people agree that this right to life isn't absolute, and for whatever reasons we make exceptions. I am arguing an exception here, and if pressed I can justify why. You guys are arguing no exceptions at all, then flounder when I point to a situation (eg war) where you go "oh yeah, except in that case."

There's no answer to my point in there.

Your point was irrelevant, so I only briefly touched on it. Why is it irrelevant, because I didn't say majority = right. I pointed out that by Thanas logic, if I complained about AI "doing their job" = I am whining. By that logic AI criticising Indian government for doing their job must also = AI whining, ergo I am correct in accusing them of doing so. It just so happens that the job of the Indian government is to look after their constituents, which does involve looking after the will of the MAJORITY population. But you seem to have latched onto that one line about the majority and tried to make an argument out of it, and wondering why I am not biting.

[salm]

I don´t think anybody is arguing "no exceptions at all".

[Thanas]

By that logic I can go...

The state is upholding their laws and what they consider justice, which is of course supported by the majority of their population.

"What they consider to be justice" is not supposed to be the right measure of state actions either. Try again.

Actually my post reads as stated that they are using fallacious reasoning, again. Not because they dare to attack the death penalty, again. You miss the point that "the addition" to attacking the death penalty, is being linked to it, when there is nothing really stopping DP advocates saying the same thing.

They only use fallacious reasoning if you disagree with their opinions. Which again makes you attacking them idiotic as those opinions can neither be proven right or wrong.

The same logic applies to them using very prestigious sporting events to attack the US or any other developed nations as well, that being its a thing the average Joe is going to be watching. In fact since you ascribe them attacking sporting events as what sounds like a tactical measure, it would make sense for them to do the same as well.

You got to focus on some parts otherwise your message will get lost. Now, are you going to criticize them for only speaking about the US whenever it is US election time?

I could nitpick and say that the victim will also have a right to fair trial if they ever charged with anything (else), so it seems pointless going down this tangent. However I will prefer the following way. The best way to guarantee that we have the correct perpetrator is a fair trial, and if according to how you interpret it, it gives more rights to the perp than the victim it can't be helped because we need to identify who the perpetrator is. However after all is said and done, why then do we have to continue to give more rights to the victim? And if you do admit we do give the perpetrator more rights than the victim, why are you getting upset with me for pointing that out. Shouldn't you be saying "so what?, instead of "bull.""

My, what a clever twist. Shocking.

But really, do you expect this to fly? You can't attack them for giving them more rights and then agreeing that the state says it as well. That is not consistent. You should be arguing for no trial and immediate stoning of any perpetrator or accused. Better yet, why give them a humane death? After all, this would be more than their victims got.

Or maybe it is time for you to admit that all of this is a matter of degrees how much more rights we give and as such there is no perfectly valid opinion? So in short, you are once equating matters of degree and opinion with fallacious and wrong.

Come on. They are saying all it will do is accomplish short term revenge. Pointless to say that unless someone gasp actually wants short term revenge.

"Someone who is not identified and may in fact be anybody." If your statement is even true, which it is not. Because you might pursue some actions and not want them for some reasons. For example, I like to eat meat. I like to do so because I like the taste. I don't like to do so because I want to kill cows.

See the difference?

I do consider them important. I don't consider them to be more important than universal rights. I would have no problems with the state listening to them when it comes to prison terms etc., but I would like to think we have evolved past the stage of eye for an eye.

But Thanas, why prison terms?

Are you now claiming that we should not listen to the victims at all? Some victim rights advocate you are.

Isn't freedom a universal right? Don't we deny people certain rights as part of how society functions. Do we not deny people the right of freedom when we imprison them? In parts of Europe is not freedom of speech limited by Holocaust denial laws? Why is it in these cases some universal rights limited in certain cases, but the right to life is not. Either rights are universal or they aren't, and certain times we may feel its beneficial to limit them, no?

Freedom is not a universal human right. The right to life and to be treated humanely however is. All other rights are to some degrees derived from them. Freedom is a basic right which may be infringed upon if one for example commits a crime.

BTW Nice eye for an eye jibe. If we didn't move past eye for an eye, we would be advocating the Indian rapists would be receiving exactly what they did to their victim. However they aren't. They are advocating a death which causes them less trauma than what they gave their victim. So we did move past eye for an eye, but that never stops the humans crowd bringing it up.

Even societies which had "eye for an eye" laws never had perps getting exactly the same as the victims. They received punishment which came close. I can't believe someone this intelligent would try such a dumb argument with so little knowledge unless they were actively trying to be obtuse.

That's like the Greens in Australia saying we want to close the nuclear reactor but when asked about the use of nuclear isotopes for medical purposes, say they still want that (even though we can't have them if you close down the reactor). You literally cannot have it both ways in such a scenario.

Yes you can because there is not a single scenario in which China could not have asked for popular consent before committing their brutal tactics. The mere fact that china is a dictatorship where democratic processes are illegal by default renders any such argument moot.

AI can go as far as saying we don't want overpopulation but without some economic coercion by the state (which they oppose), the problem isn't going be tackled that effectively.

What is your evidence that it cannot be limited without using to dictatorial means? Last I checked no European state suffers from overpopulation and again there is nothing that stopped China from using a democratic process. You know, other than them being dictatorial thugs.

In which case see above and I will reiterate...
a) why are some rights like freedom sacrificed when we imprison criminals, something you have absolutely no problem with

Because society will not function otherwise. But it is not absolutely necessary to kill people which is what you need to infringe on a basic human right.

Now, now, no one ever said that. Amnesty is perfectly free to advocate on their behalf, but donors may choose not donate. The best way to do that is give donors accurate information. For an organisation which is against media censorship, one would think they would have no problems with doing this, unless of course its only bad to skewer the information by government censorship, and somehow ok to do it by conveniently leaving out some details.

What do you consider a greater threat? A small group of fanatics or a huge dictatorship cracking down on anything it dislikes?`

The point is, no matter how you spin this - they were caught being incompetent with their fact gathering at best, dishonest at worse. And this is just in a situation I know a little bit about. I wonder how much more skewering of the truth they did in other claims especially in areas where I (and the average Joe) wouldn't know much about.

The first is a matter of opinion. Do you agree that whatever AI did the Chinese state is acting far worse here? As for other "truth skewering" feel free to point out where it happened.

That's kind of the point. Which amuses me because it implies that almost all donors to AI don't hold such "high" values as AI.

One does not have to be a saint to oppose injustice. By that logic you would also have to rail against Lincoln because he once defended slave owners. Fact is what the chinese do is far worse and I find little sympathy for someone who rails against AI without also railing against the Chinese for their far worse behavior, for that person has to get his priorities straight.

[K. A. Pital]

You should be arguing for no trial and immediate stoning of any perpetrator or accused. Better yet, why give them a humane death? After all, this would be more than their victims got.

This does not follow. One can support extremely harsh punishment including death, but only in case the perpetrator is determined correctly. The special protection of the suspect ("giving him rights") is seen as necessary evil in case we are dealing with a guilty person, and an absolute necessity in case the person really is not guilty. After all, if an innocent is subjected to a trial, that is injuring his rights to freedom of movement, etc. even though he did nothing. It is bad enough already.

So given that the apropriateness of punishment hinges heavily on correctly determining the guilt, it is reasonable that until guilt is established the person gets extra rights because _we are not even sure if that's the perpertrator_. We are not giving _the perpetrator_ extra right; we are depriving a person _who MAY be the perpetrator_ of rights...

Once guilt is established without doubt, it is reasonable to say that the perpetrator (now no longer a suspect) should be executed.

Last I checked no European state suffers from overpopulation

To be fair, Thanas, Europe passed their explosive pop. growth time a long time ago since it industrialized and ran out of peasantry like, 100 years before China. And it has a population like twice or thrice smaller than China.

Because society will not function otherwise

Questionable. It will function. We may not like the outcome, find it distasteful, call it Somalia, etc. but reality says society will keep functioning. Possibly the loss of life will be greater, but that is it. Which raises the question if we are merely going by utilitarian standards, if we are willing to put some people to jail to save lives, why are we not willing to execute some people? Just FYI I am against DP and I think it is pointless, especially for industrialized nations, to keep such a practice.

[Thanas]

You should be arguing for no trial and immediate stoning of any perpetrator or accused. Better yet, why give them a humane death? After all, this would be more than their victims got.

This does not follow. One can support extremely harsh punishment including death, but only in case the perpetrator is determined correctly. The special protection of the suspect ("giving him rights") is seen as necessary evil in case we are dealing with a guilty person, and an absolute necessity in case the person really is not guilty. After all, if an innocent is subjected to a trial, that is injuring his rights to freedom of movement, etc. even though he did nothing. It is bad enough already.

So given that the apropriateness of punishment hinges heavily on correctly determining the guilt, it is reasonable that until guilt is established the person gets extra rights because _we are not even sure if that's the perpertrator_. We are not giving _the perpetrator_ extra right; we are depriving a person _who MAY be the perpetrator_ of rights...

And some people consider life imprisonment a necessary evil over the death penalty. And yet, even once guilt has been established we are still giving them extra rights. We do not give them nothing to eat until they are killed etc.

To be fair, Thanas, Europe passed their explosive pop. growth time a long time ago since it industrialized and ran out of peasantry like, 100 years before China. And it has a population like twice or thrice smaller than China.

I consider this immaterial since in no way does it necessitate China being a dictatorship, nor can it serve as such an excuse.

Questionable. It will function. We may not like the outcome, find it distasteful, call it Somalia, etc. but reality says society will keep functioning.

Somalia is not a functioning society by any standard. There is no central power, no rule of law. Anarchy is no society.

[K. A. Pital]

And some people consider life imprisonment a necessary evil over the death penalty. And yet, even once guilt has been established we are still giving them extra rights. We do not give them nothing to eat until they are killed etc.

We don't. Although to be fair if the execution is quick the point is moot. Do we really give them extra rights or, since the person is going to be ultimately extinguished and destroyed, it does not make sense to subject this person to extra cruelty?

I consider this immaterial since in no way does it necessitate China being a dictatorship, nor can it serve as such an excuse.

I thought you were criticizing their demographic policies and not their mode of government.

Somalia is not a functioning society by any standard. There is no central power, no rule of law. Anarchy is no society.

To the contrary: anarchy is a society. It can be extremely violent or structured along syndicalist or polis-union lines, but it is a working society. What is not present there is government. But the government is not the society. That is a lie all governments want people to believe, that government equals society. It is not true: neither government nor nation-state equals society. Society predates all forms of government, modern nation-states and all that you mentioned: rule of law, central power. More than that, even though some people are terrified at the prospect of living like a Hadza, no one would deny that they have a society (and a very egalitarian at that).

[mr friendly guy]

By that logic I can go...

The state is upholding their laws and what they consider justice, which is of course supported by the majority of their population.

"What they consider to be justice" is not supposed to be the right measure of state actions either. Try again.

Nice dodge, but it ain't working. I thought your point was that I was whining, based on my criticism of AI for doing their job, rather than what the Indian government's laws are just. I repeat again, if my criticism of someone doing their job is whining, then AI is also whining because they criticise the Indian government doing their job. The only difference is, you agree with AI so they aren't whining and you disagree with me.

They only use fallacious reasoning if you disagree with their opinions. Which again makes you attacking them idiotic as those opinions can neither be proven right or wrong.

Its fallacious because its irrelevant, not because I disagree with that particular claim, ie Indian needs procedural changes to decrease the incidence of these assaults. I actually agree with that. I even pointed out there is nothing stopping death penalty advocates adopting the same thing. However the new procedural change is irrelevant to whether the DS should be carried out in this case. Hence why I called it fallacious.

You got to focus on some parts otherwise your message will get lost. Now, are you going to criticize them for only speaking about the US whenever it is US election time?

You know very well that targeting sporting events maximise loss of prestige to that country. If its so effective why isn't it used against non developing nations. Can't be its ok to push developing nations as far as we like, but we can't do the same to the country of our donors right?

My, what a clever twist. Shocking.

But really, do you expect this to fly? You can't attack them for giving them more rights and then agreeing that the state says it as well. That is not consistent. You should be arguing for no trial and immediate stoning of any perpetrator or accused. Better yet, why give them a humane death? After all, this would be more than their victims got.

Or maybe it is time for you to admit that all of this is a matter of degrees how much more rights we give and as such there is no perfectly valid opinion? So in short, you are once equating matters of degree and opinion with fallacious and wrong.

If only mockery won the argument, I would have to fold up and go home. Oh wait.

1. I expect it to fly because they only way to know if we caught the right person is via a fair trial. I am sure you won't disagree with that. If we just stone people without trial, how would we know we got the right person and the real perp isn't just running around somewhere else? How does it serve the victim and their family if we caught the wrong person?

2. I could point out if you think its ok for the perps to get more rights, then you wouldn't have said "bull" when I called AI out on it.

3. It its just a matter of degrees, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with me saying that they shouldn't get more rights than the victim after they have been found guilty.

4. As to why I don't argue for an inhumane death, maybe because they really won't maximise utility. I am puzzled though, I didn't realise there is a right to torture someone for the victims. Where did that come from?

"Someone who is not identified and may in fact be anybody." If your statement is even true, which it is not. Because you might pursue some actions and not want them for some reasons. For example, I like to eat meat. I like to do so because I like the taste. I don't like to do so because I want to kill cows.

See the difference?

As I said AI is a bit more subtle than the others, like people in this thread. Because that subtlety it allows you to try and spin it in the best light. Try this one.

I know its tempting to say that we are better than these rapists and murderers (we are), but letting not executing these people is just to make us feel better. It doesn't help the family of the victims with their suffering, and in doing so we just prolong the family suffering. Its a necessary evil, because we have to hold that our principles are more important than that.

See, not mentioning anyone by name, but who do you think I could possibly mean when I say "we."

Are you now claiming that we should not listen to the victims at all? Some victim rights advocate you are.

You know, this retort would only make sense because you cut my paragraph after the first sentence so you can just fire off this retort. Unless you somehow missed the point completely.
Because there is no way I suddenly said we shouldn't listen to the victims, I am asking why you only listen to a certain extent and violate right to freedom, but won't violate the right to life. This has nothing to do with me suddenly doing a 360 and saying we shouldn't listen to the victims at all.

Freedom is not a universal human right. The right to life and to be treated humanely however is. All other rights are to some degrees derived from them. Freedom is a basic right which may be infringed upon if one for example commits a crime.

Justify why the right to life is universal. While you are at it, kindly explain why every military intervention which has led to deaths of the enemy is morally wrong, because we kind of violated the right to life right there. If you think there is some underlying principle greater than the right to life, which justifies violating it with military intervention, then you can't justify the right to life being universal.

Even societies which had "eye for an eye" laws never had perps getting exactly the same as the victims. They received punishment which came close. I can't believe someone this intelligent would try such a dumb argument with so little knowledge unless they were actively trying to be obtuse.

My, my, my, I love how you nitpick what is considered close.

Yes you can because there is not a single scenario in which China could not have asked for popular consent before committing their brutal tactics. The mere fact that china is a dictatorship where democratic processes are illegal by default renders any such argument moot.

You actually kind of just illustrated what I mean, because the argument flew right over your head. You are more interested in the abstract principles of democratic process, where things must be done in that manner rather than the consequences of the decisions itself (irregardless of whether it was arrived at by democratic nor undemocratic means). The consequences of course are overpopulation, and the fact you quickly lose track of that in favour of focussing in on "but they aren't democratic" just illustrates my point. Its all very well for us in rich countries to say, be more democratic, and another to actually have to live with the consequences of decisions made. I believe this is called putting the abstract principles above the people they are supposed to benefit.

What is your evidence that it cannot be limited without using to dictatorial means?

If you mean economic coercion like fines, and not allowing social welfare to the next child as dictatorial means, why don't you ask yourself why every country which isn't in anarchy use economic coercion like fines, etc or heaven's forbid, laws to elicit certain behaviours from people. This isn't some magical libertarian utopia where everyone will just do the right thing without these type of coercions.

Last I checked no European state suffers from overpopulation and again there is nothing that stopped China from using a democratic process. You know, other than them being dictatorial thugs.

You have got to be joking using that type of argument. China suffers from an overpopulation problem because of the numbers of its people compared to the size of its economy. I can't believe I have to point this out. If it had a GDP / capita comparable to the rich EU countries, this wouldn't be a problem. However reality is different.

You may not like them, but they aren't fucking stupid. They didn't institute a population policy because they are moustache twirling villains, they instituted it because their economy could not raise the standard of living equal to what they have done with a faster growing population. If they had the same situation like Europe with a GDP / capita being in the rich range, they wouldn't need to institute it. Again it has nothing to do with their mode of government, but with the economic situation they were in when they made the decision to introduce such a policy. AI cares about the former, and you pretend they care about the latter.

Because society will not function otherwise. But it is not absolutely necessary to kill people which is what you need to infringe on a basic human right.

Oh. Was society not functioning before these criminals were imprisoned?

Again, can you explain why every military intervention was unjust because we violated the basic human right to life then? No doubt you will spin something about "absolutely necessary" being some arbitrary condition which only you side can meet.

What do you consider a greater threat? A small group of fanatics or a huge dictatorship cracking down on anything it dislikes?`

Talk about a false dichotomy there. How about people might want to donate to other human right causes, which doesn't include supporting a homophobic, anti miscegenation group which cheers on the death of innocent people in natural disasters. Oh, and if you challenge me to back that last one up, I can too.

The other point of course is, since human rights is such an important principle, why then does AI have to skewer the truth when it comes to promoting it? Don't they have confidence in the strength of their own principles to convince others of it?

The first is a matter of opinion. Do you agree that whatever AI did the Chinese state is acting far worse here? As for other "truth skewering" feel free to point out where it happened.

I notice you didn't answer earlier when I used the David Irving example. To reiterate, if I pointed out that Austria some country jailed a historian because he advocated a view of history not shared by the state and totally forgot to mention that historian is a Holocaust Denier and jailed for doing just that, would I be deceptive or at least incompetent with the truth? Because according to you, its just "a matter of opinion."

Secondly, its not just my opinion. Its clearly incompetence or dishonest because by leaving out certain details, AI is altering the interpretation and how we perceive a group. This is basic high school English where you analyse something written. You obviously understand this to some level, because earlier you stated that if they preface things like "this group are scumbags no one will support them." I don't know you can say that, and then turn around and say my claims that its incompetent or dishonest is just a matter of opinion. When they ignore these undesirable traits and just describe Falun Gong as a spiritual movement, it clearly has the effect of increasing sympathy points.

Thirdly, lets have a look at their press release where they do just that. Linky. So yeah, I was right.

One does not have to be a saint to oppose injustice.

True. Then you shouldn't object to me pointing out AI is deceptive in its news releases. After all, one doesn't have to be a saint to oppose injustice.

By that logic you would also have to rail against Lincoln because he once defended slave owners. Fact is what the chinese do is far worse and I find little sympathy for someone who rails against AI without also railing against the Chinese for their far worse behavior, for that person has to get his priorities straight.

This isn't an all or nothing black /white fallacy. Earlier I said AI can knock itself out on some of those human rights abuses. However this does not prevent me criticising them for things which I disagree with, no more than you can point out Lincoln once defended slave owners even if he did help weaken slavery. You did ask me what my problem with AI is did you not? Apparently you don't like the answer because I don't agree with them 100%.