India to execute 4 rapists

[Thanas]

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?

That depends. If we were truly exacting revenge here wouldn't it make sense to make them suffer like their victims did? Or are we accepting that this would make us savages and try to find a compromise? My argument is that everything is being a compromise between victims rights.

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.

No, I consider the way they decide what policies to enact. For example, I would have no problem with any nation enacting such policies if the citizens of such nations voted for them. If Germany were to enact such a policy and after all legal actions and the democratic process had played out, then there would be nothing for me to criticize here.

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).

[/quote]

Ok, if you want to split hair along those lines, I will add the qualifier "industrialized and rule-of-law society". Because I think we are really haggling semantics here and I don't doubt you would be arguing that anarchy would work for a civilized country.

[Thanas]

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.

No. Sigh.

My point is that your attack on the "human rights crowd" and that you used words not conductive to a civilized debate. In short, what I am critiquing here is you throwing out some low hanging fruit and being a shithead. Admittedly I bit on the low-hanging fruit, so there's that. In any case, there are far better targets to criticize than the human rights crowd, yet funnily you chose to focus on them. It is IMO a stupid tangent which only serves to deflect criticism away from the things that really matter, i.e. China's and India's barbaric society.

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 assume argument where none exists. AI is saying "things need to be done and killing somebody will not get them done", where you think they are saying "things need to be done therefore it is bad to kill people".

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?

So in effect you are whining because they dared to maximise their efforts on China one time? OH NOES. WHAT WILL THE POOR CHINESE DO? How about not being barbaric shitheads, but that is too much to ask from the great nation of china?

But sure, I am definitely convinced protesting the US in front of the UN headquarters, attacking candidates during election times etc. does nothing to maximise the loss of prestige of the USA. Keep dreaming.

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?

So in short, you agree with me that attacking them for "wanting to give the perps more rights than the victims" is wrong? Glad we got that cleared up.

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."

All civilized citizens of the world.

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.

Because there is a line to be crossed. Which I am pretty sure you damned well know, because you sure are not arguing for boat people to be shot on sight.

Justify why the right to life is universal.

By virtue of being a human being.

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.

You have the right to defend yourself and as always, it depends on the circumstances involved. You just can't expect me to lay down a one-size-fits-all guideline, because that would be simplistic.

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.

No, the right to life of genocide victims is just as great as the right of life of the genocider, except one is threatening the other. Thus one has to try to stop the other, with non-lethal means if possible. There is a non-lethal alternative in this case which allows the murderers to be stopped from harming another, without killing them. Or do you deny that it exists?

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.

I love how you backpedal and offer little in the way of retort when caught in such a stupid argument. Any retort forthcoming or shall I consider this dropped?

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).

That assumes that anything besides the dictatorship results in overpopulation. This does not follow and I will need evidence for that assertion.

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.

You assume that anything besides barbaric dictators making decisions would result in the bad outcome. Like I said, justify that assertion.

If you mean economic coercion like fines, and not allowing social welfare to the next child as dictatorial means,

You mean, discriminating against your own citizens. Good job of being a mature and advanced society there, China.

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.

The difference being that those measures are legitimized by a democratic process, which means consent of the governed has been given. Unlike in China, where the dictatorship decides what to do. Your attempt to equivocate the two lacks reason.

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.

This is irrelevant to the core of my argument - there is nothing that is forcing China to be a dictatorship besides the dictators. Last I checked, Chinese were neither too stupid nor too illiterate for a democracy. GDP does not matter here.

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.

Are you making the claim that only a dictatorship is able to govern effectively? Because that is what you are in fact saying when you claim that being a dictatorship is necessitated by GDP.

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?

Sure, but it was also functioning before criminals were killed, so this is again the wrong angle to be considered here.

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.

I've got no interest in challenging you on anything. I don't give a damn about Falun Gong. And people are not donating to support Falun Gong, they are donating to stop China's dictatorship. Falun Gong is merely one out of many cases of China's human rights abuses.

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?

Why aren't the Chinese starting every one of their press conferences by admitting their long list of abuses? Are they not convinced of the strength of their own convictions? Or maybe you can stop playing and recognize how PR works from both sides.

BTW, I am not letting you weasel out of this one:

]Do you agree that whatever AI did the Chinese state is acting far worse here?

I've asked this several times yet somehow you seem to evade the question. I wonder why. Maybe because if you admit that the Chinese are acting far worse here you would be forced to admit that AI is very tame in comparison? Or maybe because you are unable to admit that the Chinese shitheads are in the wrong here?

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."

I am not in favor of jailing people for opinions. That includes David Irving. As to my support, I donate to an organization as a whole.

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.

Sure it has that effect. And why is it a bad thing when AI does this but not when the state-funded dictatorship-supporting Chinese PR apparatus does it? Shouldn't you focus on them as they lie to a much bigger extent? Why is it that you want to handcuff the human rights organization and not the dictatorship?

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.

What I am objecting is you demanding AI list every bad thing ever done by the group in existence but that you will not admit that PR is the only weapon they have against the dictatorial state of China and that you will not admit that China is doing far worse things.

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%.

What I disagree with is that you demand that AI handcuff itself but that you demand nothing of the same for China.

[K. A. Pital]

That depends. If we were truly exacting revenge here wouldn't it make sense to make them suffer like their victims did? Or are we accepting that this would make us savages and try to find a compromise? My argument is that everything is being a compromise between victims rights.

We do make some people suffer even if the victims are already long dead and no satisfaction could be gained. Say, former Nazis. We hunt them down and we judge them and we mete out harsh punishments, especially at this age. We are destroying them even though there are no victims still alive. I am not so sure the justice system does not have a revenge component - after all, the monopoly of the state on violence was meant to prevent vendettas and blood feuds by concentrating all punishment functions in one body.

No, I consider the way they decide what policies to enact. For example, I would have no problem with any nation enacting such policies if the citizens of such nations voted for them. If Germany were to enact such a policy and after all legal actions and the democratic process had played out, then there would be nothing for me to criticize here.

I can understand the criticism of the dictatorship, but I don't reall feel a difference here. If a dictatorship implements a measure which is sensible, I can give them credit for that. If a democracy calls for lynchings or other brutalities, it is very wrong even though the vast majority may be behind it. Policies stand or fall on their own. Democratic participation may have yielded similar policies, official or not, as is evident from the discussion of the two-child policy in India.

Ok, if you want to split hair along those lines, I will add the qualifier "industrialized and rule-of-law society". Because I think we are really haggling semantics here and I don't doubt you would be arguing that anarchy would work for a civilized country.

Anarchy may work, but the society needs to be way more civilized than now.

[Thanas]

We do make some people suffer even if the victims are already long dead and no satisfaction could be gained. Say, former Nazis. We hunt them down and we judge them and we mete out harsh punishments, especially at this age. We are destroying them even though there are no victims still alive. I am not so sure the justice system does not have a revenge component - after all, the monopoly of the state on violence was meant to prevent vendettas and blood feuds by concentrating all punishment functions in one body.

Revenge or punishment? I guess it is a matter of opinion what is what.

I can understand the criticism of the dictatorship, but I don't reall feel a difference here. If a dictatorship implements a measure which is sensible, I can give them credit for that. If a democracy calls for lynchings or other brutalities, it is very wrong even though the vast majority may be behind it. Policies stand or fall on their own. Democratic participation may have yielded similar policies, official or not, as is evident from the discussion of the two-child policy in India.

For me the difference is how a policy is legitimized.

Anarchy may work, but the society needs to be way more civilized than now.

Agreed.

[K. A. Pital]

Revenge or punishment? I guess it is a matter of opinion what is what.

Hmm, I guess you are right here. We have a system which punishes but not necessarily vengeful. It can be inferred from harsh punishments of victimless (or apparently victimless) crimes, e.g. minor economic offenses, vandalism, etc.

For me the difference is how a policy is legitimized.

It matters, of course, but the content of the policy matters too. There have been coalitions of reactionary governments (and by that I don't even mean mildly conservative centre-right parties like in Germany; I mean the batshit crazy ones, like the Russian govt). Which also enjoyed a high degree of democratic support, regrettably. Do all Russians support the anti-gay laws? Maybe not. But does a significant faction of a redneckized semi-rural and city suburb population support that? Sadly yes.

[Thanas]

It matters, of course, but the content of the policy matters too. There have been coalitions of reactionary governments (and by that I don't even mean mildly conservative centre-right parties like in Germany; I mean the batshit crazy ones, like the Russian govt). Which also enjoyed a high degree of democratic support, regrettably. Do all Russians support the anti-gay laws? Maybe not. But does a significant faction of a redneckized semi-rural and city suburb population support that? Sadly yes.

Sure, the content matters a lot. If a democratic Government would suddenly decide to elect a batshit insane racist as glorious leader (not that this has ever happened before ) it would of course be worse than Chinese one-child policies. And arguably democratic Governments have done much worse in recent years (e.g.: Ruanda). Nobody sane would dispute that. But I think that criticizing the Chinese for being dicks for no reason when they have not even tried to exhaust other options (heck, it is not like plebiscites are uncommon for communist countries) is valid criticism.

[mr friendly guy]

No. Sigh.

My point is that your attack on the "human rights crowd" and that you used words not conductive to a civilized debate.

This is quite funny because I can recall you using the same tactics in other threads, and frankly I don't care if its considered "civilized debate". But apparently its only bad when your side is being attacked because you clearly behave in the same "shithead" manner you accuse me of.

BTW - if this is what you really really have meant in the first place, you sure communicated it in such a way to make any person reading it to interpret it in a totally different manner.

In short, what I am critiquing here is you throwing out some low hanging fruit and being a shithead. Admittedly I bit on the low-hanging fruit, so there's that.

So after all that you really wanted to say we aren't behaving in a "civilised manner". But fine, I will take this as an olive branch of sorts even if you did call me a shithead, because I have a thick skin and since you at least was not hypocritical in admitting you resorted to the same style in this thread. Also unlike some other posters, I do respect you generally even if I disagree with you on some things. That of course won't stop me flaming you.

In any case, there are far better targets to criticize than the human rights crowd, yet funnily you chose to focus on them.

Because in a thread about India executing 4 rapists, the human rights crowd have already voiced their opinion, hence they are relevant to the thread? What, you think I should derail my own thread and talk about something unrelated because they are "better targets to criticise."

It is IMO a stupid tangent which only serves to deflect criticism away from the things that really matter, i.e. China's and India's barbaric society.

But Thanas, I thought we don't insult the victims relatives by labelling them barbaric.

You assume argument where none exists. AI is saying "things need to be done and killing somebody will not get them done", where you think they are saying "things need to be done therefore it is bad to kill people".

Except when "killing somebody will not get them done" is used in a spiel against the death penalty, its quite obvious they are sneaking that one through. Got any new tricks?

So in effect you are whining because they dared to maximise their efforts on China one time?

More like I am pointing out they aren't doing it to certain others, ergo its a blatant double standard. But don't let that little detail get in the way of your rant. Its actually quite funny when you think about it. Later on in this post you accuse me of holding a double standard, yet are quite happy to hold one here.

OH NOES. WHAT WILL THE POOR CHINESE DO?

How about ignore AI as a joke. Oh wait, they do.

How about not being barbaric shitheads, but that is too much to ask from the great nation of china?

Not relevant to my point about the double standard.

But sure, I am definitely convinced protesting the US in front of the UN headquarters, attacking candidates during election times etc. does nothing to maximise the loss of prestige of the USA. Keep dreaming.

Yeah, because at election time people expect political messages. At sporting events the only debate the average joe is expecting is who is going to win. Totally the same. How about someone derails your NFL thread and posts human rights messages. I am sure you have no problem with that aside from the fact its distracts from what people are actuallywatching the sporting event for reading that thread for.

So in short, you agree with me that attacking them for "wanting to give the perps more rights than the victims" is wrong? Glad we got that cleared up.

Still avoiding the point about why you objected to me criticising AI for giving the perps more rights when according to you its ok. Need I remind you said "bull" when I made my statement. It sounds like you just shifting the goalposts here.

But to reiterate, I don't see it as giving the perp more rights by giving a fair trial, no matter how you try to spin it. A trial implies the state charging someone, whereas the right to life isn't triggered by the state charging you, its there irregardless.

All civilized citizens of the world.

Congratulations with that reply to my very specific post. Did you just get this as a one liner from the propaganda department? Lets go through the implications of what you said.
1. By identifying a group when I say "we" even if I didn't mention it by name, you admit its quite possible for AI or the human rights crowd to identify a group without mentioning by name. So why do you object to my claim that these groups insulting spiel includes the victims relatives, on the grounds that they didn't mention the relatives specifically?

2. You also just admit the civilized citizens of the world prolong family suffering. Good job.

Because there is a line to be crossed. Which I am pretty sure you damned well know, because you sure are not arguing for boat people to be shot on sight.

Why should boat people be shot. Did they kill anyone?

By virtue of being a human being.

If that is the reason why right to life is universal, then why are military interventions not necessarily bad, based on this premise.

You have the right to defend yourself and as always, it depends on the circumstances involved. You just can't expect me to lay down a one-size-fits-all guideline, because that would be simplistic.

I wouldn't expect you to lay down a one size fits all guideline, except you tried to earlier. You remember that spiel about right to life blah blah universal wah wah. Don't blame me for holding what you say to account. If the right to life isn't universal and there is no one size fits all, then you can't use the "its universal right" argument to refute the death penalty. Of course that would mean you actually have to admit that "it depends on the circumstances involved." Might be a change for you.

No, the right to life of genocide victims is just as great as the right of life of the genocider, except one is threatening the other. Thus one has to try to stop the other, with non-lethal means if possible.

Ok, I will play along with your ethical system. If that is the case, if non lethal means are NOT available? Whose life should be taken. Under the premise you stated it would make no ethical difference whether the victim or the murderer goes.

There is a non-lethal alternative in this case which allows the murderers to be stopped from harming another, without killing them. Or do you deny that it exists?

I don't agree with your ethical system so it doesn't apply to my position. However I will humour you by pointing out another dimension. To stop them from harming another in a non lethal manner, ie imprisonment requires resources. These will be diverted from other life saving endeavours. In the case of India, like oh I don't know, how about feeding its population properly. In this case you are essentially saying the life of the murderer is more important than some innocent who hasn't done anything. Good job there.

I love how you backpedal and offer little in the way of retort when caught in such a stupid argument. Any retort forthcoming or shall I consider this dropped?

What backpedal? You are literally nitpicking what is considered close.

That assumes that anything besides the dictatorship results in overpopulation. This does not follow and I will need evidence for that assertion.

I don't know how you got that assumption when I clearly stated the problems with overpopulation was due to economic resources for the amount of population. Remember what I said about how things flew right over your head. Sure you do, because it just did again.

I did say however that once you are in that bad situation, some form of economic coercion is required to manage the population. One does not even need to be a dictatorship to institute some economic coercion. Would you like me to give examples of non dictatorships using such tactics for other non population related goals? Or can you figure that one out yourself. But I love how the first thing you focus on is the mode of government rather than the costs / benefit analysis of the policy.

You assume that anything besides barbaric dictators making decisions would result in the bad outcome. Like I said, justify that assertion.

That's easy. Wait for it... wait for it... I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. Wow. That was difficult.

I am saying whether a policy is good or bad irregardless of whether its made democratically or not. It stands and falls on its own merits. These are of course how much it benefits society.

You however are focussing on whether the originator of the policy did so in a democratic way or not, and getting flummoxed when I am more interested in discussing the benefits of the policy itself. You even don't even want to consider whether a policy is beneficial or not purely because its made by a form of government you dislike. That beggars belief. Contest of ideas anyone? I thought an idea stands and falls on its own merits and not on the characteristic of its authors.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say you hold your abstract principles higher than the people they are supposed to benefit. You literally ignoring whether a policy will benefit the people in favour of focussing on whether it was made in a democratic or non democratic manner.

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

You mean, discriminating against your own citizens. Good job of being a mature and advanced society there, China.

The difference being that those measures are legitimized by a democratic process, which means consent of the governed has been given. Unlike in China, where the dictatorship decides what to do. Your attempt to equivocate the two lacks reason.

I am going to have to split the reply in this way or else anyone reading it will miss the context.

I pointed out that China needed economic coercion to achieve it population limitation policy. You argue from two contradictory positions. If consent would not have been given, then its an admission that it would not work without dictatorial means and you concede the original point. If consent would been given, you concede the second point because it will be irrelevant and a decision would have been legitimized anyway. You can't have it both ways.

This is irrelevant to the core of my argument - there is nothing that is forcing China to be a dictatorship besides the dictators. Last I checked, Chinese were neither too stupid nor too illiterate for a democracy. GDP does not matter here.

Then you admit your point is pretty much irrelevant to my argument, which was pointing out China had a population problem. Once again its you who keeps on harping on the mode of government of the country, whereas I focus in on one particular policy, and don't care whether its made democratically or not. This is like Thanas's version of Commies under the bed, where you see people supporting dictatorships everywhere.

Are you making the claim that only a dictatorship is able to govern effectively?

No. But if you think that, you're welcome to try and prove it.

Because that is what you are in fact saying when you claim that being a dictatorship is necessitated by GDP.

No. I am saying that population problems are related by resources per capita, which can be measured somewhat by GDP / capita. Again this is your version of Commies under the bed. You just illustrate my point so well. You just seem so obsess with democracies vs dictatorships, its more important to you that a decision is made by "your side" and choose to ignore whether that decision has benefits.

I've got no interest in challenging you on anything. I don't give a damn about Falun Gong. And people are not donating to support Falun Gong, they are donating to stop China's dictatorship. Falun Gong is merely one out of many cases of China's human rights abuses.

Are you sure you aren't projecting here? Its you who might donate to stop China's human rights abuses, but there are certainly people who do it because they support Falun Gong itself.

Why aren't the Chinese starting every one of their press conferences by admitting their long list of abuses? Are they not convinced of the strength of their own convictions? Or maybe you can stop playing and recognize how PR works from both sides.

Irrelevant to my point that AI is lying. In fact you aren't even trying to defend their lies any more and are now instead trying to change this into a China bashing exercise. Should I take that as a concession that you agree with me that AI is dishonest.

In any event I you asked what I objected to about AI, not what I think the CCP objects to about AI. Try and stay on the topic.

BTW, I am not letting you weasel out of this one:

Tell you what. Since I am better than you I will answer your question even as I note you didn't answer my David Irving question. BTW - your reply didn't actually answer the question, its almost like you think I was asking a different question.

]Do you agree that whatever AI did the Chinese state is acting far worse here?

I've asked this several times yet somehow you seem to evade the question. I wonder why. Maybe because if you admit that the Chinese are acting far worse here you would be forced to admit that AI is very tame in comparison? Or maybe because you are unable to admit that the Chinese shitheads are in the wrong here?

Firstly, this is a blatant attempt to change the topic from AI being dishonest. You did ask me what I thought was wrong with AI did you not? Sure you did. I answered several things including this one, ie they lie. Unable to actually refute it after a while, you then try the old "lets find a worse thing to talk about" trick. Pretty blatant with all the subtlety as a bull in a china shop.

But in answer to your question. Yeah they done some worse things. They also done much better things than AI ever could dream of to. At the end of the day history will have to weigh the positives and negatives. Oops, there goes your master stroke. You tried the China card trick with me before because you know I think its good they advance their economy. I freely admitted you can call China out on some of its actions, because no one is beyond criticism. Don't ever forget that, not even Amnesty International. But I digress. Didn't work then, and it didn't work now. You seem to be fast running out of tricks.

I am not in favor of jailing people for opinions. That includes David Irving. As to my support, I donate to an organization as a whole.

That failed to answer my question of whether someone is dishonest when they ask you to help out a jailed historian like Irving but conveniently forget to mention what Irving did. Its almost like you are answering a totally different question.

Sure it has that effect. And why is it a bad thing when AI does this but not when the state-funded dictatorship-supporting Chinese PR apparatus does it? Shouldn't you focus on them as they lie to a much bigger extent? Why is it that you want to handcuff the human rights organization and not the dictatorship?

Everyone should tell the truth short of national security things etc. Apparently you think it should only be limited to the big boys because of their unfaaaaair advantage. Although I will say this, I suspect a lot of what you find objectionable would be to me, so what? Like capital punishment.

What I am objecting is you demanding AI list every bad thing ever done by the group in existence but that you will not admit that PR is the only weapon they have against the dictatorial state of China and that you will not admit that China is doing far worse things.

Can't bring yourself to say lying is the only weapon, as opposed to PR. Geez, funny that. Moreover I am not demanding they list every bad thing done by FG. They can be dishonest all they like, and I can call them out for that dishonest, all I like. I will even go on to say the fact they lie is actually lower on my list of criticisms of them after 1. Their anti capital punishment BS and 2. How they hold abstract principles higher than the people they are supposed to benefit.

What I disagree with is that you demand that AI handcuff itself but that you demand nothing of the same for China.

Oh. I could have sworn you objected to my claim that AI was dishonest, and then finally changed to, but I don't hold everyone to the same standard after I demonstrated they were bloody well dishonest.

[Singular Intellect]

One of the douchebags took his own life because he was too cowardly to face the consequences of his actions, another got off lightly as he was a juvenile, but now an Indian court has sentenced the other 4 to death.

My favourite part here is how in one breath you call the suicide victim a coward and in the next cheer that the others will be punished with death.

I guess death is only punishment if society gets the 'joy' of inflicting it?

Also, I'd like to know what efforts were made to rehabilitate these human beings prior to deciding they are beyond possible help and must be executed.

In principle I'm not against the death penalty. However, invoking it is an admission on part of society it cannot help the human beings in question and society as a whole is guilty for having allowed fellow human beings to have become such individuals in the first place.

Executing human beings can be justified in my opinion, but it should always be a situation of sadness and failure of society. Anyone who treats such an outcome as 'good' or with a positive and vindictive attitude is fucked in the head as far as I'm concerned.

[mr friendly guy]

One of the douchebags took his own life because he was too cowardly to face the consequences of his actions, another got off lightly as he was a juvenile, but now an Indian court has sentenced the other 4 to death.

My favourite part here is how in one breath you call the suicide victim a coward and in the next cheer that the others will be punished with death.

He was too cowardly to have his day in court and face up to what he had done and the humiliation. Your point being?

I guess death is only punishment if society gets the 'joy' of inflicting it?

I love how you come into a thread, not read the previous posts, and reiterate arguments which were addressed in one form or another previously. But I do love how you assume I call him coward because apparently I don't get the "joy" of seeing society kill him. Besides being an obvious appeal to motive fallacy, I wonder where you got that idea from? Most probably pulled out of body parts where the sun don't shine.

[mr friendly guy]

Executing human beings can be justified in my opinion, but it should always be a situation of sadness and failure of society. Anyone who treats such an outcome as 'good' or with a positive and vindictive attitude is fucked in the head as far as I'm concerned.

Thus proving my point that the human rights crowd just love to rub it in to the victim's families. Clearly they aren't suffering enough to have their daughter raped and murdered, no sirree. We have to call them "fucked in the head" and "vindictive" because they want these fuckers killed. Yep, says it all really about the human rights crowd, where empathy for the criminal is worth more than empathy for the victims and their relatives.

[The Romulan Republic]

Executing human beings can be justified in my opinion, but it should always be a situation of sadness and failure of society. Anyone who treats such an outcome as 'good' or with a positive and vindictive attitude is fucked in the head as far as I'm concerned.

Thus proving my point that the human rights crowd just love to rub it in to the victim's families. Clearly they aren't suffering enough to have their daughter raped and murdered, no sirree. We have to call them "fucked in the head" and "vindictive" because they want these fuckers killed. Yep, says it all really about the human rights crowd, where empathy for the criminal is worth more than empathy for the victims and their relatives.

If you can't have an honest debate, how about you take your generalizations and ad hominems and fuck off?

[Singular Intellect]

He was too cowardly to have his day in court and face up to what he had done and the humiliation. Your point being?

Who cares if he was a coward or not? He's dead and paid the ultimate price for his choices in life, and all you can do is bitch people didn't get to torment him a bit beforehand.

I love how you come into a thread, not read the previous posts, and reiterate arguments which were addressed in one form or another previously. But I do love how you assume I call him coward because apparently I don't get the "joy" of seeing society kill him. Besides being an obvious appeal to motive fallacy, I wonder where you got that idea from? Most probably pulled out of body parts where the sun don't shine.

So why are you calling him a coward then? If he's not a coward because he avoided the time and hassle of being publicly tormented for a bit prior to being sentenced to death anyhow, what exactly was he being a coward about?

The individual committed suicide, likely because they felt life was no longer worth it after they what they had done. That alone should indicate they had a very clear notion of how badly they had fucked up and what they felt their life was worth after the fact.

Executing human beings can be justified in my opinion, but it should always be a situation of sadness and failure of society. Anyone who treats such an outcome as 'good' or with a positive and vindictive attitude is fucked in the head as far as I'm concerned.

Thus proving my point that the human rights crowd just love to rub it in to the victim's families. Clearly they aren't suffering enough to have their daughter raped and murdered, no sirree. We have to call them "fucked in the head" and "vindictive" because they want these fuckers killed. Yep, says it all really about the human rights crowd, where empathy for the criminal is worth more than empathy for the victims and their relatives.

The suffering and pain of family members and loved ones does not excuse tormenting or depriving human beings of rights. That's why in grown up world, we don't put family members and loved ones in the positions of judge, jury and potential executioners. They cannot be objective, impartial and are suffering enormous amounts of mental stress.

And my comment was about people such as yourself, not family members. You know, the ones who think tormenting such guilty parties is important prior to executing them, hence why you call one who commits suicide a 'coward', even though death is the proposed solution to their crime anyhow.

Heaven forbid anyone is actually interested in whether these guilty individuals can be redeemed and rehabilitated back into society before deciding to execute them. And how silly of me to sit here and claim I'm not against execution on principle, but insist that if it gets done it should be done so humanely, as a last resort and as a ultimate acknowledgement humanity as a whole failed both the victims and victimizers.

Your professed concern for the pain and suffering of family and loved ones is a joke and a farce. What about the family and loved ones of the guilty parties in question? Why does their pain of having their children/family/loved executed for their crimes so conveniently slip your notice?

Ah, right. Because you don't actually give a fuck about the suffering of family and loved ones, you're just hiding behind their pain as an excuse for your pathetically obvious attempt to justify your internet tough guy bullshit.

The world isn't black and white, and one day when you grow up, you'll figure that out.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not against execution on principle, but insist that if it gets done it should be done so humanely, as a last resort and as a ultimate acknowledgement humanity as a whole failed both the victims and victimizers.

It seems, however, that the victim comes from a poor class background; the perpetrators, by Indian standards, seem to have been incredibly brutal and society's failure here is far from obvious. I mean, gang rape sure, but piercing a person with a metal rod for a horrible death?

[Metahive]

Why's MFG complaining that one of the rapists killed himself? He wanted him dead and he's dead, just how it should be according to him. Or is it true after all that the God of Vengeance must be appeased by special rituals that require death to be administered a certain way?

[K. A. Pital]

I could understand why someone killing himself after a crime could be considered cowardly. After all, it usually leaves the trial abruptly over due to death of the perpetrator. There are no facts to be discussed, no process to be seen. He is no less dead, but he is dead without due process.

Imagine if the entire cliquie judged at Nuremberg or the Japanese murderers judged during the Khabarovsk process decided to off themselves all of a sudden. It is highly likely that the process would be thrown into disarray. Himmler was never tried since he killed himself; but by the logic of events he should have been. Just as Hitler, too.

Suicide is not a way to escape death but to escape public exposure of your cruelties and crimes. All too often a murderer kills self and then the process fades from mass media immediately. Indeed, why explain what he has done and what the consequences should be, if he just kills self? It is not the appeasing of a vengeful public but the education of the public about what a person has done, about what the crime is and what the punishment is, which is important in a process.

If a suspect is killed by a criminal gang in prison before facing trial, we usually are displeased - it is punishment without due process, without even the ability to see if he really deserved death - remember that the outcome of a trial is not a 100% certainity. Why then killing self to avoid a due trial is good? It is a disruption of the justice system.

Just FYI, I do not subscribe to the idea that vengeance needs to be served in the exact same way to the perpetrators - for if this were true, they should've been all impaled on metal rods to die slowly and painfully for three days or so, to feel what they have done - but instead I am concerned by the fact that some escape the trial process altogether.

[Metahive]

As far as I know this guy was already sentenced to death and the trial over, so why should it matter in his case how he kicked the bucket?

[K. A. Pital]

As far as I know this guy was already sentenced to death and the trial over, so why should it matter in his case how he kicked the bucket?

Oh - in this case it does not matter at all. I'd even say he did a service to the executioner(s) by making their jobs a bit easier.

[mr friendly guy]

Executing human beings can be justified in my opinion, but it should always be a situation of sadness and failure of society. Anyone who treats such an outcome as 'good' or with a positive and vindictive attitude is fucked in the head as far as I'm concerned.

Thus proving my point that the human rights crowd just love to rub it in to the victim's families. Clearly they aren't suffering enough to have their daughter raped and murdered, no sirree. We have to call them "fucked in the head" and "vindictive" because they want these fuckers killed. Yep, says it all really about the human rights crowd, where empathy for the criminal is worth more than empathy for the victims and their relatives.

If you can't have an honest debate, how about you take your generalizations and ad hominems and fuck off?

Ah, another person who failed to read the thread. What a shock. Hey dipshit, lets summarise it for you. Already in this thread people have described people advocating the death penalty as

a. Bloodthirsty, er I mean having a "thirst for revenge" (scorpion)
b. Barbaric (Metahive)
c. Barbaric (Thanas) and of course uncivilised from the same poster.

No matter how you try to evade it includes the victims relatives who are also advocating that. This is adding insult to injury. To tell someone already suffering they are just bloodthirsty and barbaric is a clear case of that. Now you guys can do that all you like. However its quite telling you guys don't even have the insight to realise you are doing it, and start whining when I call you out on it.

Christ. Even Penn and Teller had more respect for the victims even as they argued against the death penalty. That is saying something right there.

[mr friendly guy]

Why's MFG complaining that one of the rapists killed himself? He wanted him dead and he's dead, just how it should be according to him. Or is it true after all that the God of Vengeance must be appeased by special rituals that require death to be administered a certain way?

Because pointing out he is a coward is an accurate description of him. Nah, couldn't be that.

I will admit at least it saves the state some resources.

As far as I know this guy was already sentenced to death and the trial over, so why should it matter in his case how he kicked the bucket?

You are incorrect. Which you would realise if you actually read the article I posted in the first post.

One defendant, Ram Singh, who was driving the bus at times during the assault, hanged himself with his bedsheet in his Delhi prison cell in March. A second defendant, who has not been named because he is a juvenile, was sentenced last month to three years in a detention center — the heaviest sentence possible in India’s juvenile justice system.

Given that the fucker hanged himself in March, and I posted the article in September, I am going to say that he did so before the trial was over. That's just a guess mind you.

[Metahive]

Because pointing out he is a coward is an accurate description of him. Nah, couldn't be that.

Why's killing yourself the coward's way out if he was going to die anyway? Can you explain in detail why he should have died that way instead of this way?

Given that the fucker hanged himself in March, and I posted the article in September, I am going to say that he did so before the trial was over. That's just a guess mind you.

If you wish to pour vitriol out on me you over my supposed negligence you better don't be a-guessin'.

No matter how you try to evade it includes the victims relatives who are also advocating that. This is adding insult to injury. To tell someone already suffering they are just bloodthirsty and barbaric is a clear case of that. Now you guys can do that all you like. However its quite telling you guys don't even have the insight to realise you are doing it, and start whining when I call you out on it.

I think it's barbaric to think that blood should be payed with more blood. It's not whining to point out that "WHY DON'T YOU THINK OF THE VICTIMS !!!!!111" is just cheap Appeal to Emotion and not an actually valid argument for the DP in this or other cases. If the sentence had been to sodomize them to death with a metal rod with the approval of the victim's relatives, would you have applauded and defended that too?

Are you pro-vigilante justice? After all, you say the only thing that really matters is what the victims and their relatives want and in that case we might as well do away with courts altogether.

[mr friendly guy]

Who cares if he was a coward or not?

You apparently do, because you chose to debate it. If you don't care, no one is putting a gun to your head and making you dispute that point.

He's dead and paid the ultimate price for his choices in life, and all you can do is bitch people didn't get to torment him a bit beforehand.

Holy Strawman Batman.

So why are you calling him a coward then?

I thought "who cares whether he is a coward or not" applies here. Obviously you do care whether he is a coward or not because you keep on challenging me on it.

If he's not a coward because he avoided the time and hassle of being publicly tormented for a bit prior to being sentenced to death anyhow, what exactly was he being a coward about?

Hmm. Let me think on this one. Oh I know..

1. He helped four of his buddies brutalise a girl and companion raping with a fucking pole. Maybe in the "grown up world" that is considered brave.
2. He refused to face up to his actions by killing himself before the trial was over. Are you not able to see how not facing up to you actions is cowardly? Holy shit. Even in primary school KIDS knew that admitting you did wrong took some courage. Apparently this lesson got lost in the transition to the "grown up world".

BTW - your statement implies that the trial is unfair, after all he was going to be "sentenced to death anyhow" before the trial was even over. Got any evidence to back that up? Yeah didn't think so.

The individual committed suicide, likely because they felt life was no longer worth it after they what they had done. That alone should indicate they had a very clear notion of how badly they had fucked up and what they felt their life was worth after the fact.

Evidence that he realised he had fucked up?

The suffering and pain of family members and loved ones does not excuse tormenting or depriving human beings of rights.

Ok, so you object to imprisoning people as well? Since that is depriving human beings of right to freedom. Good to know.

Or maybe you could read the thread and realised we went through this song and dance with Thanas.

That's why in grown up world, we don't put family members and loved ones in the positions of judge, jury and potential executioners.

They cannot be objective, impartial and are suffering enormous amounts of mental stress.

Fortunately they weren't put in that position. However as this was stated in the fucking posts before, its an important consideration for sentencing, so the judge and jury must consider it. Jesus, another fuckwit who hasn't read the thread. Do you guys come out at a specific time to pontificate on arguments that were covered several posts ago, or only after a certain number of pages.

And my comment was about people such as yourself, not family members.

If you actually read the thread you would know that this has been addressed repeatedly with Thanas. Its like someone saying <insert group here> is bad, and then saying I didn't mean all people in this group. Sorry when you talk about DP advocates as fucked in the head it includes others no matter how you spin it.

You know, the ones who think tormenting such guilty parties is important prior to executing them, hence why you call one who commits suicide a 'coward', even though death is the proposed solution to their crime anyhow.

Oh noes. You super dooper psychic powers found me out. I really called him a coward because I wanted him to suffer and not because refusing to face the consequences of his actions is cowardly. Holy telepathic powers Batman.

Heaven forbid anyone is actually interested in whether these guilty individuals can be redeemed and rehabilitated back into society before deciding to execute them.

Heaven forbid if you actually try to justify why this should be done rather than just assume it.

And how silly of me to sit here and claim I'm not against execution on principle, but insist that if it gets done it should be done so humanely, as a last resort and as a ultimate acknowledgement humanity as a whole failed both the victims and victimizers.

Translation, its society's fault. Well you are the guy who still refused to acknowledge your statement is rubbing it in to the victim's relatives, so I guess you would blame society.

Your professed concern for the pain and suffering of family and loved ones is a joke and a farce.

Did you come to that conclusion from the same psychic powers that concluded I called a man who needed the help of 4 others to brutalise a girl cowardly, not because of his actions but because I secretly wanted him to suffer. Forgive me if I take your above statement as a joke. A bad one too.

What about the family and loved ones of the guilty parties in question? Why does their pain of having their children/family/loved executed for their crimes so conveniently slip your notice?

Ha ha ha. I am going to have so much fun with that self righteous statement. Lets try this on for size.

The suffering and pain of family members and loved ones of the criminals does not excuse tormenting or depriving the rights of that that poor girl. That's why in grown up world, we don't put family members and loved ones of the accused in the positions of judge, jury and potential parole officers. They cannot be objective, impartial and are suffering enormous amounts of mental stress.

Ah, right. Because you don't actually give a fuck about the suffering of family and loved ones, you're just hiding behind their pain as an excuse for your pathetically obvious attempt to justify your internet tough guy bullshit.

Ah, right. Because you don't actually give a fuck about the suffering of family and loved ones, you're just hiding behind their pain as an excuse for your pathetically obvious attempt to justify your self righteous sense of superiority and how much more civilised you are than those who disagree with you.

Hey look. Appeal to motive fallacies are fun. We can just make grandiose statements in lieu of an actual argument which addresses the point the opponent made.

The world isn't black and white, and one day when you grow up, you'll figure that out.

Metahive tried this trick earlier. He found out my view was somewhat more nuance than what he thought. Oh I forgot. You didn't read the thread. So silly of me. Maybe when you grow up you will realise that reading is very important.

[Purple]

@mr friendly guy

Honestly, I think the whole human rights argument here can be summed up like this:
Assumption: Killing or torturing people is bloodthirsty and barbaric.
Thus:
#1 Anyone doing so to other people is bloodthirsty and barbaric.
#2 Anyone advocating doing so to other people is bloodthirsty and barbaric.
Deriving from that we conclude:
#3 By virtue of #1 these rapists are bloodthirsty and barbaric.
#4 By virtue of #2 anyone advocating doing so to anyone, the rapists included is also bloodthirsty and barbaric.

You seem to agree with them on #1-3 but not on #4. Now, to go on a slight tangent here. I can think of only two ways this could be logically justified. Either you disagree with the original premise and somehow think that there are exceptions to it to be made for the purposes of revenge and punishment or you think that #3 makes the rapists no longer "people" and thus they don't count. So did I get it right? And if so which one is it?

[K. A. Pital]

After all, you say the only thing that really matters is what the victims and their relatives want and in that case we might as well do away with courts altogether.

Actually, we can't. The wishes of the victims can be directed at the wrong person. Therefore the court is at least necessary to establish guilt and the correct determination of guilty individuals (or parties, in case of criminal organizations). I understand your point, but there is no need to exaggerate. We can't do away with courts, but if we were to go for anything the victims want to happen to the perpetrators, this would certainly do away with any pretense at humanism in the penal system. Those who only lose property may want death for the thief, after all, and I think even if the court correctly determined the guilt, this would not be considered sane.

On the other hand, we know as third-party observers that actual horrendous harm was done to the victim. So if we decide to terminate the lives of individuals responsible, it is our decision which is based on our own sense of justice. Sometimes victims may exhibit a Stockholm syndrome; a person subjected to years of slavery may advocate leniency for the captors, but again, as a third-party observer we have established the fact of severe brutality, enslavement and degrading of human dignity, so we often punish the perpetrators within the full extent allowed by our laws.

I think MFG is incorrect here. It is a lot less the subjective desire of the victims and a lot more the objective collective empathy towards the victims in society that guides our hand.

[mr friendly guy]

Why's killing yourself the coward's way out if he was going to die anyway? Can you explain in detail why he should have died that way instead of this way?

You know, for someone who ranted in another thread about people jumping in and reading only the last line, and ignoring the fact that their arguments were addressed several pages ago, you have a funny habit of doing that yourself. Alanis Morisette would sing a song about that. What's it called again. Oh that's right - Ironic.

Back to the topic, I never claimed he should die that way instead of this way. I said he was cowardly for refusing to face his actions in trial. Next time I just going to ask you to read the thread because you, Singular Intellect and that other loser didn't bother to read it.

Given that the fucker hanged himself in March, and I posted the article in September, I am going to say that he did so before the trial was over. That's just a guess mind you.

If you wish to pour vitriol out on me you over my supposed negligence you better don't be a-guessin'.

Since you sarcasm detector is broken and you didn't realise the statement "that's just a guess mind you", was fucking sarcasm I will back it up.

With articles from here,here and here. Which all pretty much state that the trial was still ongoing when he offed himself. So forgive me I keep up the vitriol. I am sure you won't mind.

I think it's barbaric to think that blood should be payed with more blood. It's not whining to point out that "WHY DON'T YOU THINK OF THE VICTIMS !!!!!111" is just cheap Appeal to Emotion and not an actually valid argument for the DP in this or other cases.

As I said, you can call it barbaric, but you can't deny its insulting to the victim's relatives. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

If the sentence had been to sodomize them to death with a metal rod with the approval of the victim's relatives, would you have applauded and defended that too?

For fuck's sake. THIS ARGUMENT WAS ADDRESSED WHEN I DEBATED THANAS.

Earlier I wrote

"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."

The reason why I wouldn't agree with the sodomize punishment among others, is that the victims feelings and ability to reach closure is not the only thing to consider, but you guys don't give a fuck about that. Seriously, did you three losers even bother to read the thread, or just the last few sentences I made.

Are you pro-vigilante justice? After all, you say the only thing that really matters is what the victims and their relatives want and in that case we might as well do away with courts altogether.

Another example of your negligence as you put it, and NOT FUCKING READING THE THREAD. I already stated that it was not the most important thing to consider. My point about the insulting the victims is not so much that the perps get a bigger punishment, but that the human rights crowd add insult to injury and won't even have the insight or courage to admit that.

[mr friendly guy]

@mr friendly guy

<snip>

Not to cut you off, but I am kind of debating 4 other people here, which has gone up from two, Metahive (who initially left the thread and came back), Thanas, and two others have joined the fray. I am not accusing you of dog piling or anything (because I am sure it wasn't intentional), but I am kind of don't want to get bog down debating several people. Thanks.

I think MFG is incorrect here. It is a lot less the subjective desire of the victims and a lot more the objective collective empathy towards the victims in society that guides our hand.

I am not sure where you got the idea that I supported the former, because I pretty much an advocate for the latter, and I kind of stated already that the empathy towards the victim is important (not the only factor to be sure) in sentencing. Which of course I quoted again for Metahive.

Oh I know where you got that idea from. Metahive's gigantic man of straw.