They are giving Luigi the death penalty

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Leo we don't need you to trick us into questioning our liberal assumptions by making senseless, provocative statements

Why are you so cantankerous? 

I didn't trick you.

Seeing the dogmas of liberalism is no easy thing.

[PurpleTree]

Just now, puporing said:

Because it's not just about what is written laws on paper, it's the consciousness of the society and lawmakers and how much they are influenced or not influenced by politics and their political leaders of the time.

The kind of people I may think deserve  the death penalty might be very different from what you think, for example. 

I think nobody deserves the death penalty.

As i said it’s an ancient thing.

Things like how to deal with immigration/flows of refugees i find a difficult subject.

But death penalty? Easy just abolish like Europe 80-100 yrs ago.

[Inliytened1]

The problem is taking a taking a side of liberalism or conservatism.   No one is going to gain anything by taking a particular side or identifying with any side.  And surely no one is going to get enlightened by it.  Why does everyone have to assume that someone is liberal because they agree or disagree about a particular agenda?  Why do you even jump to that?  Because someone who "sides" liberal automatically has to agree with everything on the "liberal" checklist? Why do you label people like that? How do you even know he's "liberal"? Whatever that even means.  I mean maybe he is but don't you think he's thought for himself on these topics? Why label him into a group because he has an opinion on a topic?  That's the whole problem with politics today.

[The Crocodile]

 

[Scholar]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Why are you so cantankerous? 

I didn't trick you.

Seeing the dogmas of liberalism is no easy thing.

The death penalty isn't the "dogmas of liberalism". You have such a reactionary stance. You have to have actual, good reasons for why any given "liberal" thing is actually negative.

If I am for trans acceptance, you can't just say "Liberalism has gone too far, strict gender are necessary for the function of society". And basically, that's the first thing you'd have to say if you wanted to talk about the dogmas of liberalism.

The response here is not going back a century to appease the bigots. The response is to find a new, more sophisticated manner of steering individuals.

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The death penalty isn't the "dogmas of liberalism". You have such a reactionary stance. You have to have actual, good reasons for why any given "liberal" thing is actually negative.

If I am for trans acceptance, you can't just say "Liberalism has gone too far, strict gender are necessary for the function of society". And basically, that's the first thing you'd have to say if you wanted to talk about the dogmas of liberalism.

The response here is not going back a century to appease the bigots. The response is to find a new, more sophisticated manner of steering individuals.

Exactly.  I don't think highly of the labeling that goes on here.  This is supposed to be a high Consciousness  forum and yet everyone wants to so quickly assume or divide everyone into sides.  I think hopefully we're all beyond that.  We have a whole spiritual forum about "not knowing" for Christ sake.  I guess the political forum can be considered low Consciousness if everyone here identifies on a particular side.  The whole point of high Consciousness is to rise above that.

Edited yesterday at 12:14 AM by Inliytened1

[puporing]

13 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I think nobody deserves the death penalty.

As i said it’s an ancient thing.

Things like how to deal with immigration/flows of refugees i find a difficult subject.

But death penalty? Easy just abolish like Europe 80-100 yrs ago.

Ok but this is a bit circular because the guy who we are talking about essentially acted like a judge and gave the death penalty of this individual. That's essentially what happened because he/and lots of other people felt it was justified. 

So if you are anti-death penalty then you can't also be for people like this who decide to kill whom they think deserve killing. 

--

But then the point is also that society has to have some kind of way for peaceful protests to count/matter to prevent such things in the first place, as I was saying this guy was a symptom of that things are not working.

So perhaps the "philosophical question" at hand is, what kind of rebellion is justified if peaceful protests/means gets you nowhere??

Edited yesterday at 12:19 AM by puporing

[Leo Gura]

I do consider offense over the death penalty a dogma of liberalism.

Feel free to disagree, but also consider my point.

Edited yesterday at 12:16 AM by Leo Gura

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I do consider offense over the death penalty a dogma of liberalism.

Feel free to disagree, but also consider my point.

After giving it much thought, we're gonna have to kill you now.

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I do consider offense over the death penalty a dogma of liberalism.

Feel free to disagree, but also consider my point.

I have no emotional attachment to the death penalty, again, what I get flabbergasted by is your way of reasoning.

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I think nobody deserves the death penalty.

As i said it’s an ancient thing.

Things like how to deal with immigration/flows of refugees i find a difficult subject.

But death penalty? Easy just abolish like Europe 80-100 yrs ago.

Let's see how easy it will be to forgive the guy who slaughters and rapes your wife in front of you.

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, puporing said:

Ok but this is a bit circular because the guy who we are talking about essentially acted like a judge and gave the death penalty of this individual. That's essentially what happened because he/and lots of other people felt it was justified. 

So if you are anti-death penalty then you can't also be for people like this who decide to kill whom they think deserve killing. 

--

But then the point is also that society has to have some kind of way for peaceful protests to count/matter to prevent such things in the first place, as I was saying this guy was a symptom of that things are not working.

There will always be crime and murder in society we can’t stop that really. 

But imo the state/law should be held to a higher standard and not kill people by death penalty.

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Let's see how easy it will be to forgive the guy who slaughters and rapes your wife in front of you.

I never said anything about forgiving. Maybe i would kill that murder guy. 
But imo the state should be a role model and not stoop to that level of an eye for an eye kind of thing and kill unarmed prisoners.

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

There will always be crime and murder in society we can’t stop that really. 

But imo the state/law should be held to a higher standard and not kill people by death penalty.

I never said anything about forgiving. Maybe i would kill that murder guy. 
But imo the state should be a role model and not stoop to that level of an eye for an eye kind of thing and kill unarmed prisoners.

Word up.  I mean he would be in prison for life and all..  so while he is rehabilitating and finding God, your loved one left the earth many years ago.  All years stolen from them while the killer has those years..  But yeah, hopefully the state will say its just.

Edited yesterday at 12:29 AM by Inliytened1

[puporing]

10 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

There will always be crime and murder in society we can’t stop that really. 

But imo the state/law should be held to a higher standard and not kill people by death penalty.

I'm inclined to agree, I think for me it would be a matter of degree so to me not all "first degree murders" are equal or the same level of severity.. but this is not something that is generally taken into account it seems.

I do not consider a first-time offender the same as a repeat offender.. for example.

Edited yesterday at 12:34 AM by puporing

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, puporing said:

I'm inclined to agree, I think for me it would be a matter of degree so to me not all "first degree murders" are equal or the same level of severity.. but this is not something that is generally taken into account it seems.

I do not consider a first-time offender the same as a repeat offender..

Yea for me that makes it complicated. If we say ok a repeat offender of certain crime gets the death sentence. Then we have to make weird calculations about what was over the line and what not.

That’s why i make it easy. Death Penalty? Nope just abolish it like most of the world already.

And as i said i believe we stoop to a lower level of consciousness for killing prisoners as a society and somebody has to do the killing as a job which is also not great imo.

[PurpleTree]

[Leo Gura]

Consider that in practice, when you are soft on crime, you get a very real backlash effect which gets authoritarians elected like Trump.

This isn't theoretical. We are living this reality.

So the costs of laxness far exceed the immediate effects and are difficult to calculate. Political vibes work is roundabout ways.

A healthy society needs a baseline of mild strictness to avoid swinging from laxness to severe authoritarianism.

If you think the death penalty for murderers is aweful, wait till you see a real authoritarian backlash.

This is one of my core critiques of progressivism. Progressives refuse to learn this lesson. When you laugh at me for saying this, you miss a profound feature of how society functions. So dismiss me at your own peril.

Edited yesterday at 12:55 AM by Leo Gura

[puporing]

15 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Then we have to make weird calculations about what was over the line and what not.

You have to make this calculation with every criminal proceedings.. someone (judge/jury) has to make that call whether there was sufficient evidence for example. Some lawmaker had to make that law and decide where that line was and what the sentencing was. 

I think people are not happy with this guy getting a seemingly more severe punishment because others have been treated differently? I am not an expert however on case laws on this in the US.

I personally don't think this guy is a great example of arguing about death penalty.. it'd be better to look at "first degree murder" as a whole and what kind of case laws surround them.  

Edited yesterday at 12:56 AM by puporing

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Consider that in practice, when you are soft on crime, you get a very real backlash effect which gets authoritarians elected like Trump.

This isn't theoretical. We are living this reality.

You think Europe should reinstate capital punishment?

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

You think Europe should reinstate capital punishment?

Frankly, it might appease some of these fascistic trends we see across Europe.

I think really wise politics requires that we throw some red meat to the right-wing base to keep them from going ape-shit.

You have to manage the vibes so that things don't feel too lax, otherwise the crowd will scapegoat the progressives. It's just how politics works. It's not fair or true, but voters are zombies.

Edited yesterday at 01:01 AM by Leo Gura