L4byr1nth Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I still maintain that politics isn't based on fact. Also we don't have to justify our opinions, because it's a public internet forum. However, I will say that £1,000,000.00 is not a cost effective way of destroying a human life. I don't care whether it's the actually method, or the legal bumpf surrounding it. You would have to find a MUCH cheaper way of doing it.... Which is actually what I posted originally, but yeah... Did I see in the news that the guy who did this to those 2 French students handed himself in? I'd like to know what the contributing factors were... What made this happen, etc. Ben. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I still maintain that politics isn't based on fact. Also we don't have to justify our opinions, because it's a public internet forum. I still maintain you have no idea what you are talking about. By posting your opinion in public it will be subject to scrutiny and may well lead to someone responding. You are under no obligation to defend your opinion as you rightly point out. So why keep posting once you've stated your opinion if you don't want to defend it? If you are bent out of shape by people attacking your views then perhaps a lively discussion board isn't the best place to air them? Link to post Share on other sites
L4byr1nth Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I'm not 'bent out of shape'. Just having a discussion... Although it seems to have gone slightly off topic. I would also motion that you don't know what you're talking about. But then I would, wouldn't I? And we could go on like this forever, until a mod shuts it down. Ben. Link to post Share on other sites
Parsley Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 And we could go on like this forever, until a mod shuts it down. Ben. or untill you admit your wrong Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I would also motion that you don't know what you're talking about. But then I would, wouldn't I? Yes because you are a blithering idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
L4byr1nth Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I would disagree with both of you. How can I be wrong in opinion? I also don't appreciate name-calling. Capital punishment IS the way forward. End of. Ben. Link to post Share on other sites
Parsley Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I would disagree with both of you. How can I be wrong in opinion? Ben. was i wrong in my opinion earlier in the thread when you told me to shut up then? Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Ben - I wasn't name calling I was making a statement of fact based on the mounting evidence presented in this very thread. How can I be wrong in opinion? Your opinion is not 'wrong' but neither is it 'right'. It's a neutral entity until you attempt to justify it. Your opinion begs the question of why you think that way. Enter a discussion forum such as this one. Discussions are about sharing opinions and the reasons you hold them. They often start with people laying out their opinions and their reasons for holding that opinion. Discussions are then about exploring the facts and justifications of one another opinions. The general outcome should be that all parties now have a deeper understanding of the issue from a variety of viewpoints. It's not about an attempt to 'win' an argument. You've said you don't need to justify your opinion. That is true, you don't have any obligation to do so. However why then continue posting after stating your opinion? Frankly I suspect you think your own justification for your opinion is weak and therefore don't want to admit you might be wrong. Hence why I included the Franklin quote several posts back. Anyway I'm sure you are nearing Australia now with the amount of digging you've been doing. In terms of argument this diagram is great to show how to go about disagreeing: At the moment you aren't actually making an argument at all. Link to post Share on other sites
hardboiledcop Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I don't know where this feeling came from that opinion cannot be disproved. It very much can. Why not, in future, keep an open mind to the fact that none of us are right about everything, and there's always someone more informed than you. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I don't know where this feeling came from that opinion cannot be disproved. It very much can. Why not, in future, keep an open mind to the fact that none of us are right about everything, and there's always someone more informed than you. That isn't strictly true. Opinions are based on peoples perceptions of things and as such are neither right or wrong. However they should be open to changing them if shown new evidence or the same evidence in a new light. In an argument we aren't seeking to disprove someones opinion but to disprove the facts and rationale their opinion is based on. Hence why I suggested that stating your opinion in a discussion carries no weight. Link to post Share on other sites
Parsley Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Why not, in future, keep an open mind to the fact that none of us are right about everything, and there's always someone more informed than you. is that not part of the basis for discussion? I don't know where this feeling came from that opinion cannot be disproved. It very much can. an opinion is personal to whoevers it is, it can't be "wrong" , it can seem wrong to you, and to those around you, but its not wrong it is a personal view "An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact." Link to post Share on other sites
Sale Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Also we don't have to justify our opinions, because it's a public internet forum. You are not obligated to do that, but you should know that on a public forum others may question your opinions. If you are not going to justify them, what the rest of us will see is just a verbal carnage where your opinions are torn apart and fed to the pigs. However, I will say that £1,000,000.00 is not a cost effective way of destroying a human life. I don't care whether it's the actually method, or the legal bumpf surrounding it. You would have to find a MUCH cheaper way of doing it.... Which is actually what I posted originally, but yeah... If I ever were to even consider accepting the idea of capital punishment, I would set a minimum price of said one million pounds that have to be spent in the process. Even if it meant they have to pile the bills on a damn bonfire and set it ablaze. I would want society to think really hard whether they want the poor *beep* dead or not. Maybe if they don't care for human life, there's hope they would care for money. -Sale Link to post Share on other sites
hardboiledcop Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 is that not part of the basis for discussion? Err, yes. That's why I made this statement. an opinion is personal to whoevers it is, it can't be "wrong" , it can seem wrong to you, and to those around you, but its not wrong It may be personal, but if it's based on things he considers fact, which aren't necessarily true, then it can be disproved. Notice I didn't use the word Wrong once to ensure I didn't promote this reaction. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Like I said its the facts and rationale that are disproven the opinion is merely altered (hopefully). Basically we all agree. Link to post Share on other sites
Parsley Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Err, yes. That's why I made this statement. i know, i was clarifying It may be personal, but if it's based on things he considers fact, which aren't necessarily true, then it can be disproved. Notice I didn't use the word Wrong once to ensure I didn't promote this reaction. True, when considered fact an opinion is no longer an opinion and can be disaproved. Link to post Share on other sites
ryan92 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 However, I will say that £1,000,000.00 is not a cost effective way of destroying a human life. I don't care whether it's the actually method, or the legal bumpf surrounding it. You would have to find a MUCH cheaper way of doing it.... Which is actually what I posted originally, but yeah... Yes that is what you did orginaly post, but ...................... there is no cheaper way of doing (while still keeping it just). Even spending an extra £1,000,000.00 we still get it wrong and execute innocent people. So think how this number will increase if we lower the legal costs. Do you think it is worth killing a few innocent people to give a little security to society? And as we already know it does not act as a detterence so infact there is no real extra security, it is simply working on an "eye for an eye" principal, which should not be present in any civilized society. Please do explain how you can lower the legal cost and ensure that no innocent people are wrongfully executed....oh no thats right you cant, sorry./ Link to post Share on other sites
K3MP0 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Just goes to show that having brains doesn't necessarily get you far in life. Sorry... Link to post Share on other sites
ryan92 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Just goes to show that having brains doesn't necessarily get you far in life. Sorry... i dont really get what you mean? But yeh i would agree that having brains doesent nescessarily get you far in life, then again, it depends how you define far. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 "The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators ... They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens." - William Graham Sumner Link to post Share on other sites
Kraut Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 If I ever were to even consider accepting the idea of capital punishment, I would set a minimum price of said one million pounds that have to be spent in the process. Even if it meant they have to pile the bills on a damn bonfire and set it ablaze. I would want society to think really hard whether they want the poor *beep* dead or not. Maybe if they don't care for human life, there's hope they would care for money. -Sale Just a quick question, I want to better understand your stance on capital punishment. Do you support law enforcement shoot-to-kill in situations that warrent (IE active shooter, brandishing/assault with deadly weapon, etc)? I understand the premise of ending the situation as quickly as possible, yet a human life is still ended. Do you support the actions of the police in these instances? Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Just a quick question, I want to better understand your stance on capital punishment. Do you support law enforcement shoot-to-kill in situations that warrent (IE active shooter, brandishing/assault with deadly weapon, etc)? I understand the premise of ending the situation as quickly as possible, yet a human life is still ended. Do you support the actions of the police in these instances? What does capital punishment sentence delivered by a court and a jury of someones peers have in common with a police officer defending their own life or the lives of other people? Not to second guess Sale but I imagine he would extend the same rights of self-defense and defense of others to the police probably with the same caveats. Link to post Share on other sites
Monkey703 Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Just to bring this discussion back on track...though I doubt it can ever truely be saved from the crossfire of 'personal opinions'....looks like someone has handed themselves in for this double killing. Have to wait and see if it all pans out. I hope so. No one should get away with such a crime. Link to post Share on other sites
Sale Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Just a quick question, I want to better understand your stance on capital punishment. Do you support law enforcement shoot-to-kill in situations that warrent (IE active shooter, brandishing/assault with deadly weapon, etc)? I understand the premise of ending the situation as quickly as possible, yet a human life is still ended. Do you support the actions of the police in these instances? I short, yes. And also if they are not the police, but an armed bystander or potential victim. As I said before, someone who attacks another person gives up their rights for the duration of the attack. So if someone is on a rampage killing other people and doesn't look like he/she's stopping, they have to be stopped by any means necessary. If they drop the weapon and surrender, they save their own life. If they don't stop, killing the attacker saves another life (or several lives), so it's not a murderous revenge, but rather a situation where you have no other choice. I would rather see the criminals stopped without bloodshed and convicted (like Luke Woodham), but in the end it's up to them. When a criminal is shackled and guarded in front of a trial where they are convicted, you do have another choice than killing them: Putting him in prison for life. I don't see how executing the criminal is necessary at that point, because he's not a threat to anyone anymore. I am very much annoyed by the fact that my tax money is spent to feed criminals in prison, but I don't think money alone is enough reason to kill anyone - even a criminal. -Sale Link to post Share on other sites
Kraut Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Ok, I see your point. That's all I was interested in. I feel differently, but who cares Anyway, on topic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...Wait-queue.html I can't imagine keeping a straight face in that situation. Link to post Share on other sites
Night_raven Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 Ok, I see your point. That's all I was interested in. I feel differently, but who cares Anyway, on topic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...Wait-queue.html I can't imagine keeping a straight face in that situation. Word of warning there,.. the Daily Mail newspaper, usually full of bigotted stuff. Hence why not alot of brits read it. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.