DescentBB

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Replace "jessica's dad" with extremist jihadists"; "His daugher" with "the greater good"; and "Couey" with "Western culture";
and you've pretty much got the gist of that Jihadism which you so profoundly hate!

I don't believe in God and never will. I used the bible interpretation of vengeance to point out to those that do believe, that scripture explicitly states that the God you read about in the bible will use it. It was just a point of comparison. It in no way infers that I believe in any God. I don't.

1: You quote the old testament, despite this point being 'overridden' by the new testament.
2: I think you quoted the wrong thing.

Bet51987 wrote:...my priest, people in my church...I live my life like a christian...

Then tell me; why do you completely ignore the "turn the other cheek, do not take out revenge on your fellow neighbour" that is oh so commonly found in the New Testament? I can tell you now that you do not actually live life like a christian as much as you think you do!

Bet51987 wrote:I don't care what people here think of me.

The fact that you feel you have to argue over what you think is just shows that you do indeed care about what people here think of you.

Bet51987 wrote:This is not aimed at you Pandora... but here is something else to think about. Suppose Couey needs a life saving transplant, does he get one if he is still alive?.. If so, what fathers son or daughter will have to go without one?

Is that supposed to be some sort of an argument?
Well, I can answer it: Yes, he will get it, because there's no point wasting a life that you can save! And he will get that transplant from either a willing organ doner or a person that was a willing organ doner and is now deceased.

Samuel Dravis wrote:What I do see right here, right now, is the apparent right and the real wrong coexisting. You and Couey seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated.

I wouldn't really say that, because apparently Couey killed out of a mental disorder. So I don't know if he thought it was justified, or if he was forced to do it.

Samuel Dravis wrote: I didn't see you "get into" the moral argument you supposedly(?) have for revenge somehow being good, so I guess it's no great loss that you leave.

What I do see right here, right now, is the apparent right and the real wrong coexisting. You and Couey seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification (and in your case, you explicitly ignore it!) - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated.

Thank goodness your moral righteousness wasn't felt by the 12 jurors who sentenced Couey to death. Their courage to do what is right gives me hope that the world will become a better place for kids to be born in and just maybe his death will stop one little girl from being stolen out of her bedroom. Oh, and it will be Couey who will be leaving, not me.

Let me ask you this... What is YOUR moral argument that Couey should be spared at all costs. I would love to hear an honest answer from you.

TIGERassault wrote: 1: You quote the old testament, despite this point being 'overridden' by the new testament.
2: I think you quoted the wrong thing.

I didn't quote the wrong thing. According to scripture, God said "vengeance is mine" which translates to "I will pay them back for how they have caused others to suffer."

TIGERassault wrote:Then tell me; why do you completely ignore the "turn the other cheek, do not take out revenge on your fellow neighbour" that is oh so commonly found in the New Testament? I can tell you now that you do not actually live life like a christian as much as you think you do!

I don't turn the other cheek for anyone. My morals aren't based on scripture which gives me an uncluttered picture of what good and evil really are and a clearer view of what should be done about it.

TIGERassault wrote: The fact that you feel you have to argue over what you think is just shows that you do indeed care about what people here think of you.

I'll give you that. It does bother me but in Jessicas case I'm willing to ignore it.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:This is not aimed at you Pandora... but here is something else to think about. Suppose Couey needs a life saving transplant, does he get one if he is still alive?.. If so, what fathers son or daughter will have to go without one?

Is that supposed to be some sort of an argument?
Well, I can answer it: Yes, he will get it, because there's no point wasting a life that you can save! And he will get that transplant from either a willing organ doner or a person that was a willing organ doner and is now deceased.

Not really. My motive is purely vengeance. However, it is a good reason to put a child killer to death so he won't kill again by using a liver that could have been used for a human being. He will get better medical care than you will, free, and have you to pay for it. He is so worth saving isn't he.

Samuel Dravis wrote:What I do see right here, right now, is the apparent right and the real wrong coexisting. You and Couey seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated.
....I wouldn't really say that, because apparently Couey killed out of a mental disorder. So I don't know if he thought it was justified, or if he was forced to do it.

"Forced to do it"? Your really stretching your argument now aren't you? Couey was fully cogizant for the three days he was raping her and had planned the kidnapping in advance and carried it out. He even tried once before by entering a little girls bedroom and started kissing her but she got away, then a freindly lawyer got him out in only 10 years. I can't believe your trying to gloss over the severity of her death by insinuating that Couey and I are similar, or he thought he was justified in killing her. Thats plain stupid. All this to satisfy your weak argument for keeping him alive. Surely, you can do better than that.

Mine is plain and simple. I want pure unadulterated vengeance as soon as possible and its the only reason I check CNN every morning. Have a nice day.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:...According to scripture, God said "vengeance is mine" which translates to "I will pay them back for how they have caused others to suffer."

I know it's not a factor for you, B, but just for the sake of avoiding mis-interpretation, I'd like to point out what has been said before in this thread:

Will Robinson wrote:If there is a god, and if he did in fact say that 'vengeance is his...' It seems to me that he is saying he'll be the one to dish it out and he'll be the one to decide when and if it is justified.

Foil wrote:God saying "Vengeance is mine" is referring to His position as ultimate judge, not "I love vengeance".

Also, the best picture we have of God's nature is Godself in the form of Christ, who advocated forgiveness and compassion over revenge.

In other words, "Vengeance is Mine" is a statement of authority & sovereignty; it's not advocating revenge as God-like.

It's an often-mis-interpreted phrase in scripture, I just wanted to clarify.

Foil wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:...According to scripture, God said "vengeance is mine" which translates to "I will pay them back for how they have caused others to suffer."

I know it's not a factor for you, B, but just for the sake of avoiding mis-interpretation, I'd like to point out what has been said before in this thread:

Will Robinson wrote:If there is a god, and if he did in fact say that 'vengeance is his...' It seems to me that he is saying he'll be the one to dish it out and he'll be the one to decide when and if it is justified.

Foil wrote:God saying "Vengeance is mine" is referring to His position as ultimate judge, not "I love vengeance".

Also, the best picture we have of God's nature is Godself in the form of Christ, who advocated forgiveness and compassion over revenge.

In other words, "Vengeance is Mine" is a statement of authority & sovereignty; it's not advocating revenge as God-like.

It's an often-mis-interpreted phrase in scripture, I just wanted to clarify.

I know what you mean but I don't think I've misused the statement. The statement.."Vengeance is mine".. needs no interpretation.

Now, although I believe the story of Jesus, I don't believe in a higher authority that is going to hold Couey accountable for what he did, or bring Jessica back, or hold me accountable for wanting him to die.

Listening to the comments here forced me to do a lot of soul searching the last few days but going over every photo I have of her, the articles describing what her life was like and the fact that she was very much like me, I became more and more comfortable with how I feel about myself and what I've said in this thread and I take exception to some comments about my character. My morals are not in question here.

What is in question here is the laxed attitude some have about life. How quickly some step over her body so they can make sure Couey is safe. Just saying you want him dead brings up a whole bunch of statements that I just find hard to understand. But, thats my problem..

For me, make no mistake. I hate him for ending the only life she will ever have and I want him to die in the most painful way. I won't be really happy until he's dead.

Your friend...
Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:...I don't think I've misused the statement. The statement.."Vengeance is mine".. needs no interpretation.

I have to disagree.

By saying "vengeance is mine" = "I support vengeance", you've already applied an interpretation.

Let's take a look at the scripture in a little more context:

Romans 12:19 wrote:Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

I think that's pretty clear. Paul is saying that as God stated, retribution is under His authority (i.e. the final judgement), not ours.

I know that doesn't help the way you feel, B, especially since your professed belief doesn't include the God in this passage. I just wanted to make sure the scripture isn't used wrongly.

Bet51987 wrote:... and just maybe his death will stop one little girl from being stolen out of her bedroom.

...Compared to "just definitely his life will stop one man from being killed".

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:2: I think you quoted the wrong thing.

I didn't quote the wrong thing. According to scripture, God said "vengeance is mine" which translates to "I will pay them back for how they have caused others to suffer."

Uh, no. I meant the Jihad part that you quoted.

Bet51987 wrote:I'll give you that. It does bother me but in Jessicas case I'm willing to ignore it.

You're not ignoring it...

Bet51987 wrote:"Forced to do it"? Your really stretching your argument now aren't you? Couey was fully cogizant for the three days he was raping her and had planned the kidnapping in advance and carried it out. He even tried once before by entering a little girls bedroom and started kissing her but she got away, then a freindly lawyer got him out in only 10 years. I can't believe your trying to gloss over the severity of her death by insinuating that Couey and I are similar, or he thought he was justified in killing her. Thats plain stupid. All this to satisfy your weak argument for keeping him alive. Surely, you can do better than that.

Mental disorder's are serious! As I said, I don't know how his one works, but he should be placed in a mental disabilities institute and let him live normally again, without letting him being able to harm others, instead of killing him outright!

Bet51987 wrote:Listening to the comments here forced me to do a lot of soul searching the last few days but going over every photo I have of her, the articles describing what her life was like [/b]and the fact that she was very much like me[/b], I became more and more comfortable with how I feel about myself and what I've said in this thread and I take exception to some comments about my character.

Hold it right there!
Throughout this argument, you were continuously stating that you wanted Couey to die for good vs evil! Yet here, you say how you feel connected to the child is also affecting your decision!
From what it sounds like, either the whole good and evil thing is just bogus to make your argument sound stronger or, more likely, your impression of good and evil is centered on YOU!

Bet51987 wrote:Let me ask you this... What is YOUR moral argument that Couey should be spared at all costs. I would love to hear an honest answer from you.

He's human.


OH SNAP!

So what if he's human? That's no excuse.

He's human.

So if he kills 1 million people we should still let him live?

I don't care if he's human or not.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:... and just maybe his death will stop one little girl from being stolen out of her bedroom.

...Compared to "just definitely his life will stop one man from being killed".

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:2: I think you quoted the wrong thing.

I didn't quote the wrong thing. According to scripture, God said "vengeance is mine" which translates to "I will pay them back for how they have caused others to suffer."

Uh, no. I meant the Jihad part that you quoted.

Bet51987 wrote:I'll give you that. It does bother me but in Jessicas case I'm willing to ignore it.

You're not ignoring it...

Bet51987 wrote:"Forced to do it"? Your really stretching your argument now aren't you? Couey was fully cogizant for the three days he was raping her and had planned the kidnapping in advance and carried it out. He even tried once before by entering a little girls bedroom and started kissing her but she got away, then a freindly lawyer got him out in only 10 years. I can't believe your trying to gloss over the severity of her death by insinuating that Couey and I are similar, or he thought he was justified in killing her. Thats plain stupid. All this to satisfy your weak argument for keeping him alive. Surely, you can do better than that.

Mental disorder's are serious! As I said, I don't know how his one works, but he should be placed in a mental disabilities institute and let him live normally again, without letting him being able to harm others, instead of killing him outright!

Bet51987 wrote:Listening to the comments here forced me to do a lot of soul searching the last few days but going over every photo I have of her, the articles describing what her life was like [/b]and the fact that she was very much like me[/b], I became more and more comfortable with how I feel about myself and what I've said in this thread and I take exception to some comments about my character.

Hold it right there!
Throughout this argument, you were continuously stating that you wanted Couey to die for good vs evil! Yet here, you say how you feel connected to the child is also affecting your decision!
From what it sounds like, either the whole good and evil thing is just bogus to make your argument sound stronger or, more likely, your impression of good and evil is centered on YOU!

Bet51987 wrote:Let me ask you this... What is YOUR moral argument that Couey should be spared at all costs. I would love to hear an honest answer from you.

He's human.


OH SNAP!

I have said many times that Jessica was the epitome of what is good and right and Couey what was evil and wrong. That is my perception of good and evil and although I don't believe you know the difference, its not bogus to me... and the reason I connected with Jessica, again, as I said many times, is that she was very much like me and I want retribution for her death. Either your just clueless or your trying to provoke me into calling you an uninformed moron but I'm going to refrain.

And, you chose "He's Human..OH SNAP!" as your answer to my question? Well, that took a lot of thought to be condensed so well.

Bettina

Foil wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:...I don't think I've misused the statement. The statement.."Vengeance is mine".. needs no interpretation.

I have to disagree.

By saying "vengeance is mine" = "I support vengeance", you've already applied an interpretation.

Let's take a look at the scripture in a little more context:

Romans 12:19 wrote:Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

I think that's pretty clear. Paul is saying that as God stated, retribution is under His authority (i.e. the final judgement), not ours.

I know that doesn't help the way you feel, B, especially since your professed belief doesn't include the God in this passage. I just wanted to make sure the scripture isn't used wrongly.

I know what the scripture says and your right. But, since I don't believe God ever said that, then vengeance is mine.

Bee

CDN_Merlin wrote:

He's human.

So if he kills 1 million people we should still let him live?

I don't care if he's human or not.

No, but if he kills 0 more people, we should let him live.
Which is why I say keep him safe in a mental disabilities institute.
But yes, if we knew he would kill another person, then I wouldn't want him to live. Unfortunately, we don't know that.

Bet51987 wrote:I have said many times that Jessica was the epitome of what is good and right and Couey what was evil and wrong. That is my perception of good and evil and although I don't believe you know the difference, its not bogus to me... and the reason I connected with Jessica, again, as I said many times, is that she was very much like me and I want retribution for her death. Either your just clueless or your trying to provoke me into calling you an uninformed moron but I'm going to refrain.

Yes, that's what I thought; you're not entirely fighting out of what you think is good alone. (actually, I really badly phrased that last point)
Regardless, I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who makes a point of feeeling connected with a particular side. It's much too hard to try and debate to someone about what is the right thing to do who is already biased!







Oh, and it's spelt "you're just clueless"!

TIGERassault wrote:...I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who makes a point of feeeling connected with a particular side. It's much too hard to try and debate to someone about what is the right thing to do who is already biased!

It’s obvious we are both biased toward our perception of good and evil so you’re right, further arguments would be fruitless. In this entire thread, I have chosen to defend Jessica and pure innocence, while you have chosen to defend Couey and pure evil. That makes us very different.

Oh, and "feeeling" needs only one 'e'

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:It’s obvious we are both biased toward our perception of good and evil so you’re right, further arguments would be fruitless. In this entire thread, I have chosen to defend Jessica and pure innocence, while you have chosen to defend Couey and pure evil. That makes us very different.

*sigh*


Anyway, I'm still up for debate with anyone on whether the chance of him killing someone is worth keeping him alive.

Bet51987 wrote:Oh, and "feeeling" needs only one 'e'

...uhh, no.

Bet51987 wrote: It’s obvious we are both biased toward our perception of good and evil so you’re right, further arguments would be fruitless.
Bettina

That does tend to be the way of things. I agree with you Bettina - he should have been executed. All murders should be executed, both from a biblical perspective and a civil perspective.

Murder is always a pre-meditated action. Anyone who plans to murder someone and executes that plan deservers to have their own life ended. (We are not talking about accidental injuries).

God has told us that all murderers deserve death. His vengence will be universal against all criminals come judgement day. His vengence today is demonstrated via the existing governments, who "are God's ministers, avengers to express God's wrath upon the one practing what is bad." See Romans 13.

Capital Punishment is a deterant to crime. Ancient Israel had no prisons. There was no need for them. But even the Romans, who later brought that civil form of punishment into Israel, used them as a deterant to crime; ancient prisons were horrible places, where inmates rarely survived unless their families brought them food and clothing. If modern prisons were run the same way today we would have few inmates to support, and crime would also be reduced - provided punishment was quick and persistant. And that's the key - timely punishment. If murderers knew beyond any doubt that once caught and found guilty, they would suffer a speedy execution, murder rates would drop. That's how the wild west was tamed, just ask Marshall Dillion, or Wyatt Earp.

Tiger, to me it's not about IF he will kill again, it' HOW he killed the first time.

If you kill someone with a car while driving, you don't deserve to die. If you kidnap, rape, torture and murder someone, you deserve to die. The more horrific crimes to me need death and only death.

First, this:

Samuel Dravis wrote:I'm not a [moral] relativist.

Then this:

Bet51987 wrote:Evil will destroy good unless good destroys evil first. Right and good, wrong and evil.

And then, this despicable response:

Samuel Dravis wrote:You [Bettina] and Couey [convicted child rapist, child torturer, and child murderer] seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification (and in your case, you explicitly ignore it!) - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated.

This is a very, very important statement, by Dravis.

It is important because this is classic leftist ideology, at its worst. The left sees no true distinction between right and wrong, between good and evil. Instead, a teenage girl who plays Descent and believes that a child rapist, torturer and murderer should be put to death for his actions, occupies in the mind of Dravis the same moral plane as the child rapist, torturer and murderer.

Well, why stop there? Why not compare her to Hitler? After all, killing is killing - is it not?

It is not. This is moral relativism on a stunning scale, and it disgusts me. I only hope that Dravis is but a teenager, and even then his vile comparison is indefensible. I would hope that Foil, who has gone to some lengths to distance himself from remarks that might be construed as challenging the moral code of those who support capital punishment, will join me in condemning Dravis' pernicious comparisons.

Shoku and CDN-Merlin, by your recent posts, you appear to understand the difference between good and evil. Do not to be persuaded, either of you, ever, that good and evil are one and the same; regardless of how you stand on the imposition of the capital punishment.

Bettina is not the moral equivalent of a murderer for supporting the execution of one such as Couey; and you, Dravis, should be ashamed of yourself.

BD

Shoku wrote:Capital punishment is a deterant to crime...

I think that point is still up for debate, especially given Pandora's earlier post, pointing to an analysis of the major studies of the last three decades which indicate capital punishment may actually have the opposite effect (here). I'm still personally not sure about this particular point.

Shoku wrote:...ancient prisons were horrible places, where inmates rarely survived unless their families brought them food and clothing. If modern prisons were run the same way today we would have few inmates to support, and crime would also be reduced...

Granted, prisoners are often given too many undeserving benefits, but are you seriously advocating a return to dungeons and torture?

Shoku wrote:If murderers knew beyond any doubt that once caught and found guilty, they would suffer a speedy execution, murder rates would drop. That's how the wild west was tamed, just ask Marshall Dillion, or Wyatt Earp.

This is the second time that the "Old West" has been referred to as an ideal example for the process of justice. What is it about "wild west law" that makes you think it was so good and righteous?

There was no appeals process, so if you were wrongly convicted for whatever reason, too bad. There was little to no accountability to higher courts, if you were even lucky enough to get any sort of court hearing.

You might argue that the leadership at the time was more fair and moral than today, and that might be true among some religious settler groups. However, looking at the real history of the old west (not just the romanticized images like Marshall Dillon from the TV show "Gunsmoke"), I actually see more room for injustice in a system like that.

Bold Deceiver wrote:...I would hope that Foil, who has gone to some lengths to distance himself from remarks that might be construed as challenging the moral code of those who support capital punishment

You still don't seem to understand, BD. I challenged the moral statement that "revenge can be ethical", and have never stepped back from that position.

What I am distancing myself from is your earlier implication that I intended it as a personal attack on someone's character.

Bold Deceiver wrote:...will join me in condemning Dravis' pernicious comparisons.

My guess is that Dravis was trying to make a point (something like "desire alone is not a valid moral justification for anyone"). But yes, I think using that comparison to make the point was hurtful and in very poor taste, especially the way it was made personal, directed at Bettina.

Bold Deceiver wrote:This is moral relativism on a stunning scale, and it disgusts me.

Somebody is a moral relativist just for having a different viewpoint than you? Dravis hasn't really said anything inconsistent with moral absolutism, just your version moral absolutism. (And even that he has done that much is unclear, at least to the extent that you've set it out, since you're obviously interpreting his statements to mean something much stronger than they were obviously intended to mean.)

Bold Deceiver wrote:This is moral relativism on a stunning scale, and it disgusts me.

Wikipedia:
"Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

I can't see how SD's point is any way related to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Tiger, to me it's not about IF he will kill again, it' HOW he killed the first time.

If you kill someone with a car while driving, you don't deserve to die. If you kidnap, rape, torture and murder someone, you deserve to die. The more horrific crimes to me need death and only death.

Fair enough, but one of my key beliefs is that actions should be done for what impact they'll have on the future (both near and far), and not from the impression left on the past.
That's not to be misinterpreted though; I don't mean that the past should be ignored, because it's the only way you can try predict the future.

When Samuel Dravis compared me to Couey I had trouble sleeping that night, No kidding it really hit home and it hurt. I take things like they are said but now I just don't care.

Thank you BD, and the rest of you for the PM’s and the posts and in seeing the human side of this thread. It made me feel good knowing I'm not alone about how I feel about Jessica Lunsford and all the other little kids that get raped and murdered.

Someday, and I have my fingers crossed, John Couey will be put do death. Outside in the pouring rain there will be a few dozen people holding signs condemning his execution on grounds that its immoral or “he’s human” or its not the civilized thing to do. You read about those candlelight vigils outside the prisons each time and some are within miles of some girl that is long dead from a rape and murder.

I have never been able to attach a face to those people but thank you Tiger for giving that to me. I have that now and when the next girl gets murdered I will always remember your name and the responses you’ve given to me.

Many of you speak from logic but my emotions always win out with me. This is a monster of the worst kind and I wish him a very deadly time.

Bettina

Jeff250 wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:This is moral relativism on a stunning scale, and it disgusts me.

Somebody is a moral relativist just for having a different viewpoint than you? Dravis hasn't really said anything inconsistent with moral absolutism, just your version moral absolutism. (And even that he has done that much is unclear, at least to the extent that you've set it out, since you're obviously interpreting his statements to mean something much stronger than they were obviously intended to mean.)

Jeff - I don't recall holding myself out as a moral absolutist. You might have me mistaken for someone else.

To your point: Words matter -- here are the words:

"You [Bettina] and Couey [convicted child rapist, child torturer, and child murderer] seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification (and in your case, you explicitly ignore it!) - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated."

Fully sated. Couey sated by his sick desire to torture and kill a little girl; Bettina by her support for capital punishment against Couey for his horrific actions.

It could have been your sister.

Now, I believe that likening Bettina's written support for the death penalty, on the one hand, to the actions of a child rapist, child torturer, and child murderer against a nine-year old child buried alive, on the other hand, is wrong and despicable.

You are free to disagree with me.

I do not accept, however, your favorable interpretations of Dravis' contemptible conduct. And I note that Foil has taken a position against these remarks as well, for which I applaud him. Foil understands the difference between right and wrong.

I think it would be well worth it for you to sit down, take a few important minutes, and decide whether you think Couey and Bettina are cut from the same cloth. Then consider how you might feel being compared to a child rapist, molester, and murderer.

And then decide how you wish to conduct your own life, and where you want to put your name.

BD

TIGERassault wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:This is moral relativism on a stunning scale, and it disgusts me.

Wikipedia:
"Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

I can't see how SD's point is any way related to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

You choose not to see. I'll hold off and give you two more tries.

Loaded for Bear,

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:I do not accept, however, your favorable interpretations of Dravis' contemptible conduct.

I accused you of misinterpreting Dravis's remark to mean a stronger claim than what he really said, so I can't really be surprised that you would try to do the same thing with mine. Whatever Dravis's sins are, they don't consist in saying that Bet's and Couey's actions are of the same moral severity or that they are of the same moral caliber, despite your colorful metaphors suggesting otherwise.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I don't recall holding myself out as a moral absolutist.

You've in general made statements that are consistent with moral absolutism. So I'm curious: (1) What would you consider yourself? (2) What is your conception of human goodness? (3) And how can we know when actions are good or evil? It seems as though the crux of many of your arguments to further your agenda appeal to your ability to identify good and evil, so I'm curious what you think good and evil are and how you go about identifying them.

Bet wrote:This is a monster of the worst kind and I wish him a very deadly time.

Evil is too often a cushy cop-out that people use to not have to understand why people do the things that they do or even face that there aren't any good reasons. Sociopathy and pedophilia are human defects, the signs of a mis-wired brain. It would make as much sense to desire to seek revenge on a mis-wired sociopath who does not have a built-in concept of good or evil for acting in respect to his programming as much as it would make sense to seek revenge on a mis-wired computer for acting in respect to its programming.

Look, Bet, let's make it simple; if what I stand for is evil, then consider me a stanist!

Mmmm... REVISIONIST ALERT.

In utter defiance of the plain meaning of words, Jeff250 wrote:Whatever Dravis's sins are, they don't consist in saying that Bet's and Couey's actions are of the same moral severity or that they are of the same moral caliber, despite your colorful metaphors suggesting otherwise.

Yet the words remain: "You [Bettina] and Couey [convicted child rapist, child torturer, and child murderer] seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification (and in your case, you explicitly ignore it!) - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated."

I'm not overwhelmed by your argument, if that's what that is. You're just wrong; the text speaks for itself. But nice enthusiasm.

Jeff250 wrote:You've in general made statements that are consistent with moral absolutism. So I'm curious: (1) What would you consider yourself? (2) What is your conception of human goodness? (3) And how can we know when actions are good or evil? It seems as though the crux of many of your arguments to further your agenda appeal to your ability to identify good and evil, so I'm curious what you think good and evil are and how you go about identifying them.

Tell you what. Open up another thread and I'll happily join you on some of these questions. Until then, I leave you with questions to your questions --

And what is good, Jeff250, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone tell us these things?

Jeff wrote:Evil is too often a cushy cop-out that people use to not have to understand why people do the things that they do or even face that there aren't any good reasons. Sociopathy and pedophilia are human defects, the signs of a mis-wired brain.

Hmmm... Hitler had human defects. Would it have been wrong to execute him before he exterminated six million Jews? The poor fella was just misunderstood, for heck's sake. You say that evil is a "cushy cop-out", yet you are an apologist for a child-rapist, child-torturer, and child-murderer.

How's that working for you?

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:I'm not overwhelmed by your argument, if that's what that is. You're just wrong; the text speaks for itself. But nice enthusiasm.

Bet has repeatedly stated that she assents to emotion over logic and that she judges good actions to be those that she believes to be good. We can imagine Couey justifying his actions under the same premises. We can't conclude from this that Bet is no better than Couey, which you seem eager to do. (The only way we could make any sense of that is if we believed that a person is only as good as the justifications for their actions, which nobody here is advocating.) Rather, what we can conclude is that using these justifications to justify actions can end up with false positives, namely something that we can all agree to be bad to be justified as good. In other words, it's a dangerous and unreliable justification.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Tell you what. Open up another thread and I'll happily join you on some of these questions. Until then, I leave you with questions to your questions --

And what is good, Jeff250, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone tell us these things?

I'm not sure that your second question is grammatical. But as to your first, if anyone can postpone answering this question for another thread, it's me. I'm just asking you to back your claims up that revenge is good. (Although if you would like me to answer this, start another thread.) In the meantime, though, the only people you'll convince that revenge and thus the death penalty are good are those that already think that revenge is good. (These people would probably have already thought the death penalty was good if they were going to anyways, so your argument has yet to be convincing.)

Bold Deceiver wrote:Hmmm... Hitler had human defects. Would it have been wrong to execute him before he exterminated six million Jews? The poor fella was just misunderstood, for heck's sake. You say that evil is a "cushy cop-out", yet you are an apologist for a child-rapist, child-torturer, and child-murderer.

How's that working for you?

First of all, I doubt that Hitler was a sociopath in the truest sense. I suspect that the good was in every way accessible to him, but he just chose to reject it. Hitler's defects were largely moral defects, not biological defects.

Secondly, let's even suppose that Hitler was truly a sociopath and was incapable of discerning between right and wrong. Should we execute him? Quite possibly yes. But if so, certainly not out of revenge. That's as silly as seeking revenge on a tsunami that wipes out your village. They both have equal discernment over right and wrong. If a tsunami could feel pain, would you desire to seek revenge on it too?

Bold Deceiver wrote:Hmmm... Hitler had human defects. Would it have been wrong to execute him before he exterminated six million Jews? The poor fella was just misunderstood, for heck's sake. You say that evil is a "cushy cop-out", yet you are an apologist for a child-rapist, child-torturer, and child-murderer.

How's that working for you?

There's a big difference between "executing someone because they are considered evil by some people" and "executing someone because they are definitely going to kill 6 million people otherwise".

Bold Deceiver wrote:Mmmm... REVISIONIST ALERT.

Jeff250 wrote:Whatever Dravis's sins are, they don't consist in saying that Bet's and Couey's actions are of the same moral severity or that they are of the same moral caliber, despite your colorful metaphors suggesting otherwise.

Samuel Dravis wrote:You [Bettina] and Couey seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification... and... you're both likely to be fully sated.

I'm not overwhelmed by your argument, if that's what that is. You're just wrong; the text speaks for itself.

Sorry, BD, I have to agree somewhat with Jeff250 here. The text does speak for itself; reading Dravis' comment again, I think it's pretty clear that he was trying to make a point, which I would paraphrase as: "Desire without justification is not morally valid rationale for anyone's actions, even a psycho who wants to murder and rape, or a young woman who wants him executed."

Now, I do agree that it was inconsiderate and in very poor taste to phrase it as a comparison of Bet and Couey, especially given the emotion Bet has voiced in this matter.

The best thing here would be for Dravis to clarify what he meant, as I hope he didn't intentionally mean it as the comparison it seems to be at first.

Foil wrote:Now, I do agree that it was inconsiderate and in very poor taste to phrase it as a comparison of Bet and Couey, especially given the emotion Bet has voiced in this matter.

I wouldn't disagree with that either.

To tell you the truth, I had the same thought as Dravis, but I didn't want to voice it because I worried about this exact scenario. I couldn't come up with a way to say it that wasn't insulting or otherwise in poor taste, so I held back. But now that the comparison has been made, I want to at least clarify it a little bit:

Bettina has made it clear her justification is emotional. All of her attempts at providing rational, logical, or Biblical justifications have been merely rationalizations (and rationalizations are fundamentally dishonest -- if they're not your real reasons for belief, it's dishonest to pretend they're good enough reasons to convince someone else.) Her only real argument is selfish: she wants her emotions to be satisfied.

Couey, too, wanted his emotions to be satisfied. This doesn't mean she's \"the same\" as him, though. Her emotions are based on favoring good over evil, and innocence over guilt. This makes her a far, far better person than Couey. Her emotions don't provide a good rationale for the death penalty, but at least they come from the fact that she cares about the right things, while his emotions were utterly warped.

-----

So far, we've come to this point: we know Bettina desires for the guy to die. We know several others have argued the guy should die because of \"revenge\" or \"justice\", but they haven't solidly connected the first to goodness or the second to the death penalty in particular. And we know Bold Deciever believes everyone who agrees with me is a moral relativist leftist commie ;) IMO the only good argument anybody's made so far for killing has been protection -- executing people like Saddam or Hitler who could reasonably be expected to rise to power and do more hideous things if they continued to live, or killing someone in the heat of the moment because they're presently a threat.

Does anyone want to actually take a shot at explaining why a psycho murderer/rapist should be sentenced to death without resorting to:
1) namecalling,
2) arguing from emotion, or
3) vague references to words like \"justice\" and \"revenge\" without justification?

(Lest anyone think I'm being overly harsh or disrespectful to those on the other side... my wife is most definitely on the other side of this argument from me, and I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard of \"back your s**t up\" than she holds herself to.)

Jeff250 wrote:Bet has repeatedly stated that she assents to emotion over logic and that she judges good actions to be those that she believes to be good.

We're getting a little abstract here, but I don't agree that emotion simply trumps logic. I would disagree with that premise.

Jeff250 wrote:We can imagine Couey justifying his actions under the same premises.

And so therefore Bettina's support for the execution of a man who abducted, tortured, raped, and murdered a nine-year old little girl, is the moral equivalent of the abduction, torture, rape, and murder of the nine-year old girl.

I think I fully understand your position.

Jeff wrote:We can't conclude from this that Bet is no better than Couey, which you seem eager to do.

You have employed a double-negative. What you're trying to say (I think) is that BD is eager to conclude that Bet is no better than Couey.

Which is not only an incorrect statement of my position, it is senseless.

Jeff wrote:(Snip more stuff I don't quite understand).

Rather, what we can conclude is that using these justifications to justify actions can end up with false positives, namely something that we can all agree to be bad to be justified as good. In other words, it's a dangerous and unreliable justification.

Obviously, no one is advocating that vengeance should be the sole determinant for deciding whether someone should be executed by the state. That's a silly premise to begin with. For instance, I think it might be useful to employ due process to determine whether or not the party in question is actually guilty, too.

Jeff wrote:

BD wrote:Need we ask anyone tell us these things?

I'm not sure that your . . . question is grammatical.

I'm just going to leave your critical remark hanging out there, as phrased, for everyone to enjoy.

Jeff wrote:I'm just asking you to back your claims up that revenge is good. (Although if you would like me to answer this, start another thread.)

Your other questions were ambiguous, and unanswerable as phrased. I thought it might be useful to flesh them out elsewhere. This question is an excellent one, notwithstanding your unfortunate remark refusing to engage in a dialogue on the subject. So you get the response from me that you deserve.

Jeff wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Mmmm... Hitler had human defects. Would it have been wrong to execute him before he exterminated six million Jews? The poor fella was just misunderstood, for heck's sake. You say that evil is a "cushy cop-out", yet you are an apologist for a child-rapist, child-torturer, and child-murderer.

How's that working for you?

Jeff wrote:[L]et's even suppose that Hitler was truly a sociopath and was incapable of discerning between right and wrong.

That's as silly as seeking revenge on a tsunami that wipes out your village. They both have equal discernment over right and wrong. If a tsunami could feel pain, would you desire to seek revenge on it too?

You are misinformed. These are two different concepts. Sociopathy includes a general indifference to the rights and feelings of others. It is not, under any clinical definition of which I am aware, the inability to discern right from wrong. Even sociopaths are risk averse, otherwise they wouldn't attempt to hide their crimes.

They are risk averse because they know that if they are caught, oh say, burying a small child alive in a plastic sack with her toy dolphin and thereby suffocating her alone, in the dark, with no on there to so much as hold her hand and tell her it's going to be ok, not to worry . . ., society will hunt them down and punish them in retribution.

Tsunamis do not attempt to hide their "crimes". Your analogy is ridiculous. And I think most if not all states have an insanity defense available for those who are proved insane under the law.

Jeff wrote:Should we execute him? Quite possibly yes. But if so, certainly not out of revenge.

You are entitled to your opinion.

BD

Foil wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Mmmm... REVISIONIST ALERT.

Jeff250 wrote:Whatever Dravis's sins are, they don't consist in saying that Bet's and Couey's actions are of the same moral severity or that they are of the same moral caliber, despite your colorful metaphors suggesting otherwise.

Foil wrote:

Samuel Dravis wrote:You [Bettina] and Couey [convicted child rapist, child torturer, and child murderer] seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification (and in your case, you explicitly ignore it!) - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated.

Sorry, BD, I have to agree somewhat with Jeff250 here. The text does speak for itself; reading Dravis' comment again, I think it's pretty clear that he was trying to make a point, which I would paraphrase as: "Desire without justification is not morally valid rationale for anyone's actions, even a psycho who wants to murder and rape, or a young woman who wants him executed."

I respect your very forgiving interpretation. It still leaves me with this question:

When Bettina pulls the switch on the execution of Couey, would you view her action as occupying the same moral plane as the child-abduction, child-rape, child-smothering, and live burial of Jessica, by Couey?

Need a hint? Ask her parents.

BD

BD, I think you give people far too little credit in your attempts to prop up your position.

Read two posts up. Then take a deep breath and drop the patronizing attitude. I'll be waiting.

Lothar wrote:To tell you the truth, I had the same thought as Dravis, but I didn't want to voice it because I worried about this exact scenario. I couldn't come up with a way to say it that wasn't insulting or otherwise in poor taste, so I held back. But now that the comparison has been made, I want to at least clarify it a little bit:

Bettina has made it clear her justification is emotional. All of her attempts at providing rational, logical, or Biblical justifications have been merely rationalizations (and rationalizations are fundamentally dishonest -- if they're not your real reasons for belief, it's dishonest to pretend they're good enough reasons to convince someone else.) Her only real argument is selfish: she wants her emotions to be satisfied.



Couey, too, wanted his emotions to be satisfied. This doesn't mean she's "the same" as him, though. Her emotions are based on favoring good over evil, and innocence over guilt. This makes her a far, far better person than Couey. Her emotions don't provide a good rationale for the death penalty, but at least they come from the fact that she cares about the right things, while his emotions were utterly warped.

-----

So far, we've come to this point: we know Bettina desires for the guy to die. We know several others have argued the guy should die because of "revenge" or "justice", but they haven't solidly connected the first to goodness or the second to the death penalty in particular. And we know Bold Deciever believes everyone who agrees with me is a moral relativist leftist commie IMO the only good argument anybody's made so far for killing has been protection -- executing people like Saddam or Hitler who could reasonably be expected to rise to power and do more hideous things if they continued to live, or killing someone in the heat of the moment because they're presently a threat.

Does anyone want to actually take a shot at explaining why a psycho murderer/rapist should be sentenced to death without resorting to:
1) namecalling,
2) arguing from emotion, or
3) vague references to words like "justice" and "revenge" without justification?

Dennis Prager is, in my opinion, one of the clearer thinkers on the on the subject. His words follow:

"It is to prevent the greatest conceivable injustice -- allowing a person who deliberately takes an innocent person's life to keep his own.

And it tells society that murder is evil in ways that no amount of imprisonment can ever convey. Every member of society, from young child to old adult -- perceives that killing murderers means society hates evil in a way that it clearly does not if it only imprisons them."

I don't believe, Lothar, you can be dismissive about concepts such as "justice" or "injustice". Such concepts are not always easily defined, I agree, but that is not to say they do not exist. In fact, they make up the fabric of the societal weave in which you live -- and without which society would disintegrate. I note that many of the arguments offered here against the death penalty would also apply to incarceration. Yet no one here is objecting to prisons.

Vengeance is. So too, avarice is; that does not mean that capitalism is evil. Otherwise you'd stop going to work.

(And by the way, what's the point of all this if there can't be any name-calling, for heck's sake. Where's the fun in that?)

BD

Lothar wrote:BD, I think you give people far too little credit in your attempts to prop up your position.

Read two posts up. Then take a deep breath and drop the patronizing attitude. I'll be waiting.

Hmm.... You know how much I enjoy instructions!

BD

[EDIT]

On second thought, I think I'll withdraw instead. No harm done by you, Lothar, and no offense taken by me. Happy Easter to the Christians celebrating.

Thanks.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:When Bettina pulls the switch on the execution of Couey, would you view her action as occupying the same moral plane as the child-abduction, child-rape, child-smothering, and live burial of Jessica, by Couey?

(Sigh) I've already said it at least twice, I'll say one last time, since you apparently still refuse to understand:

I agree with the point Dravis was trying to make (about emotion alone not being a valid rationale for a moral decision). However, I don't condone or support the comparison of Bettina and Couey, and I never, ever, ever, ever said that I did.

--------

So, when does this end, BD?

...You spent considerable space accusing me of attacking someone's personal character, because you mis-interpreted a simple statement of my moral position.

...You took political stabs at me, making even more incorrect assumptions about my political leanings.

...And now you're accusing me of making the very comparison I had *just* made clear that I don't support?

Pardon me, but "What the hell?" How many times do I have to say something before you quit twisting it into some kind of personal attack?

I don't know if you're intentionally pushing my buttons, or just skimming and making assumptions, but I'm tired of it. I'm really upset, is that what you wanted?

Bold Deceiver wrote:(And by the way, what's the point of all this if there can't be any name-calling, for heck's sake. Where's the fun in that?)

I'll let the moderators address that one.

Bold Deceiver wrote:the greatest conceivable injustice -- allowing a person who deliberately takes an innocent person's life to keep his own

What, exactly, makes that such a great injustice?

I'm not dismissive of the concept of justice. I'm dismissive of the attempts to invoke justice without actually explaining how, exactly, justice is properly served by killing someone for crime X, or why considerations other than justice are suddenly made irrelevant by crime X. Similarly, I'm dismissive of attempts to invoke revenge as a good thing without explaining how revenge is actually good.

many of the arguments offered here against the death penalty would also apply to incarceration.

None of the arguments I've given would, because the core argument I've given is about safety. Incarceration makes a ton of sense -- if someone's a danger to society, removing them from society is a good response.

In cases like Saddam or Hitler, the death penalty has something going for it: it's the only way to be sure he won't rise to power again. If that's not a concern, incarceration works just as well, and doesn't require you to kill anyone. In such a case, the only argument left for the death penalty is the one you just gave:

it tells society that murder is evil in ways that no amount of imprisonment can ever convey... society hates evil in a way that it clearly does not if it only imprisons them.

This brings up a question: can society hate evil without hating the one who committed it?