[QUOTE="dracula_16"]The problem with that is that you're judging the religion on what people do with it. This is the religious equivalent of blaming Glock if someone gets killed with one of their handguns. I agree, and would like to add: If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the traditional Islamic religion advocate killing those who refuse to convert? That's not in line with any christian doctrine I know of. So lumping the two together as failures to promote peace seems rather unfair.It's because they probably grew up around Islam and Christianity and were mistreated by some of its doctrines. Plus there's the sadistic stuff in the Old Testament, the New Testament's understanding of salvation, the violence in the middle east and Muhammad's disdain for jews and pagans.
Both religions claim to be one of peace, but they have done a poor job demonstrating it for the last few hundred years. Sikhism is light years ahead of them in that regard.
jalexbrown
twitchmonkey399's forum posts
Fantastic. I finally get you to realize that I never said it, so now you back peddle, reverting to defending a slippery cheap shot by saying I implied it. I did not imply it, as you stated. I did exactly as I outlined in my previous response. It makes it quite clear that I did not try to prove that the death penalty was an effective deterrent by saying it worked in the past. I never meant it that way, and that is obvious from the text itself.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Do you explicit state it in so many words? No. But you sure as hell imply it.
sSubZerOo
Except both your examples are false to begin with from what we know of history..
I used religion as an example showing that punishment can be a powerfully persuasive tool, not that it decreased levels of violence. As for the stick versus gun example, I haven't even heard you say anything to combat it except for merely stating that it's false. Hey, at least you're trying to show me why my reasoning is wrong. I can appreciate something like that.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]Let me recap:
twitchmonkey: "I think this way about something"
GabuEx: "Then explain my graph."
twitchmonkey: "The graph, while showing something true, doesn't help your point in the slightest because of reasons A, B, and C."
GabuEx: "Well, you haven't provided evidence, either. And you're the one who has to, because you're the one who believes in the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment." [which, by the way, even animals understand]
twitchmonkey: I have provided evidence in the form of logical analysis. Which, I admit and apologize for now, wasn't directed at you. I shouldn't expect you to read my responses to other users. I am at fault for not keeping separate minds for separate arguments. Here's a logical analysis of the rational behind my assertion (which is aligned with the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment that even animals understand)
Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment after death for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. Now, the death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is less persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion.
How you stand now is as follows: In a position of imposing questions on the prevalently and historically accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment with zero evidence. Your move.GabuEx
I see no figures, no data, no studies, nor any comparative analyses; the sole thing you have offered is an assertion regarding historical motivation, for which you have also provided no evidence. None of this constitutes evidence in favor of the assertion that "people will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught."
Shall I say, "Your move"?
You have ignored what I said and reiterated your previous response. I have provided a logical analysis, and try as you may to not confront it, it is more than what you have. I brought up a previously traversed idea aligned with basic logic. And all you have done is bring up an inconclusive graph with a few "You don't have a graph so I'm right."'s thrown in.And where in that post do I claim the death penalty has been time-tested and proven to be a deterrent? You quoted my premise. Which I supported by doing the following: a) Showing that punishment has been time-tested as an excellent motivator using the religion example, and b) Showing that greater punishment results in greater deterring by using the stick versus gun example.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Which you posted on page 8. Or did you forget about that?
worlock77
Where do I claim the death penalty itself is a time-tested as an effective means of deterring people from committing crime?
Do you explicit state it in so many words? No. But you sure as hell imply it.
Fantastic. I finally get you to realize that I never said it, so now you back peddle, reverting to defending a slippery cheap shot by saying I implied it. I did not imply it, as you stated. I did exactly as I outlined in my previous response. It makes it quite clear that I did not try to prove that the death penalty was an effective deterrent by saying it worked in the past. I never meant it that way, and that is obvious from the text itself.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It does show that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one. I know how to read a graph. But it doesn't support your point of view for the reasons I stated above. I will continue to show this. Beef consumption in the last 20 years has increased; as has our waistlines. One could, using your logic, extrapolate from this information that beef causes fat gain and subsequently use it in an argument. A graph depicting such information doesn't let you know what else increased, decreased, and stayed constant. For example, sugar and refined flour during these last twenty years have skyrocketed to incredible proportions. I do believe you see where I'm getting at. The death penalty has been practiced in society since the beginning of recorded history, and is currently legal in the U.S. I do believe it is the responsibility of the questioner of the prevalent practice to provide evidence against it.GabuEx
You have made an assertion - that the presence of the death penalty as a punishment to which one may be sentenced results in less crime than there would be were there no such punishment available.
You have provided exactly zero evidence for that assertion.
I don't really feel as though there's much more to say than that.
Let me recap: twitchmonkey: "I think this way about something" GabuEx: "Then explain my graph." twitchmonkey: "The graph, while showing something true, doesn't help your point in the slightest because of reasons A, B, and C." GabuEx: "Well, you haven't provided evidence, either. And you're the one who has to, because you're the one who believes in the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment." [which, by the way, even animals understand] twitchmonkey: I have provided evidence in the form of logical analysis. Which, I admit and apologize for now, wasn't directed at you. I shouldn't expect you to read my responses to other users. I am at fault for not keeping separate minds for separate arguments. Here's a logical analysis of the rational behind my assertion (which is aligned with the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment that even animals understand) Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment after death for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. Now, the death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is less persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion. How you stand now is as follows: In a position of imposing questions on the prevalently and historically accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment with zero evidence. Your move.No, I do not mean that. I mean this:
[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.worlock77
Which you posted on page 8. Or did you forget about that?
And where in that post do I claim the death penalty has been time-tested and proven to be a deterrent? You quoted my premise. Which I supported by doing the following: a) Showing that punishment has been time-tested as an excellent motivator using the religion example, and b) Showing that greater punishment results in greater deterring by using the stick versus gun example.Where do I claim the death penalty itself is a time-tested as an effective means of deterring people from committing crime?
The graph shows one nation, in one point of time. All one can do with this graph is extrapolate conclusions without considering the factors it does not show yet are relevant. Education, economy, and other outside influences will affect the these statistics yet are impossible to draw upon due to the nature of this graph. Furthermore, these factors are not consistent with every nation and every time frame. To be of any convincing evidence, you will have to provide a graph (better yet, multiple graphs) that show multiple nations with diverse economies, education levels and levels of technological advancement, as well as showing different time periods that correlate with your thinking.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread
GabuEx
It shows that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one.
You are the one who made the assertion; it seems to me that the onus is on you to provide evidence showing causation between the presence of a death penalty and lower crime rates.
It does show that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one. I know how to read a graph. But it doesn't support your point of view for the reasons I stated above. I will continue to show this. Beef consumption in the last 20 years has increased; as has our waistlines. One could, using your logic, extrapolate from this information that beef causes fat gain and subsequently use it in an argument. A graph depicting such information doesn't let you know what else increased, decreased, and stayed constant. For example, sugar and refined flour during these last twenty years have skyrocketed to incredible proportions. I do believe you see where I'm getting at. The death penalty has been practiced in society since the beginning of recorded history, and is currently legal in the U.S. I do believe it is the responsibility of the questioner of the prevalent practice to provide evidence against it.Then why do so many people deprive themselves of the freedom that non-religious people enjoy? Surely, it is because they are convinced that there is a god, and that that god will punish them if they don't do as they are instructed. These people believe that a good short time on earth is not worth the eternity of hell, the greatest of all punishments. Eternal damnation is a strong form of punishment. So strong, in fact, that it will bend men to deny themselves things of there very nature.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.
worlock77
And even if history doesn't prove my rational justifiable (which it blatantly does), simply saying I'm wrong and stopping there is a poor way to argue.
You are distracting from the point. Human history does not support your premise that the death penalty is a deterrant.
History supports the logic behind my premise. When did I ever say that it supports that the death penalty is a deterrent? Do you mean here?: "This conclusion has come to mind through the time-tested effectiveness of punishment." Of punishment. Not of the death penalty. I followed it up with the stick versus gun scenario to seal my logic. I will repeat: Even if I'm wrong, you simply saying so is a poor way to argue.This conclusion has come to mind through the time-tested effectiveness of punishment. Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. My point is pretty clear, too. The death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate further: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is more persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
My point was pretty clear. You seem to think the death penalty deters people from commiting murder. I ask how you come to this conclusion.
worlock77
Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.
Then why do so many people deprive themselves of the freedom that non-religious people enjoy? Surely, it is because they are convinced that there is a god, and that that god will punish them if they don't do as they are instructed. These people believe that a good short time on earth is not worth the eternity of hell, the greatest of all punishments. Eternal damnation is a strong form of punishment. So strong, in fact, that it will bend men to deny themselves things of there very nature.And even if history doesn't prove my rational justifiable (which it blatantly does), simply saying I'm wrong and stopping there is a poor way to argue.
I think I made my post unclear, subsequently making your response unclear to me. When I said "few people," I was referring to people in this thread. If you already understood it that way, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate a little further on your point, so as to better understand what you're asking me.[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
The concept of the death penalty has been around for as long as human civilization has been. Now how do you figure it's been any deterrent?
worlock77
My point was pretty clear. You seem to think the death penalty deters people from commiting murder. I ask how you come to this conclusion.
This conclusion has come to mind through the time-tested effectiveness of punishment. Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. My point is pretty clear, too. The death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate further: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is more persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion.
Log in to comment