Children on death row.
- Thread starter charmander
- Start date
**Jibs@Royal**
Member
omg y would makea thread of this of all things
The phrase "what gives you the right" is among the stupidest cliches I can think of. It presupposes that natural rights exist, which is nonsense. Here in the real world, pragmatism reigns supreme. The efficient working of a state is not built on virtue or ethics; the vast majority of our laws are completely contrary to ethical philosophy. The question is not what gives a state the right to kill people, it is simply what works best. Often the intuitive "right thing to do" coincides with what works, because few want to live in a country that tortures people, or if they do they don't want to open the door to being tortured themselves. Providing everyone with access to education is good for everyone whether they could get it without government assistance or not. Are people willing to live in a country where the scum of humanity are killed, rather than fed and housed by the state? Maybe. But it's not a majority rules kind of question - it is an objective question wherein peoples' subjective reactions are an important consideration.
There are good reasons to put people who can't be rehabilitated to death. There are fewer good reasons not to, and most of the best reasons not to are statistically dwarfed.
There are good reasons to put people who can't be rehabilitated to death. There are fewer good reasons not to, and most of the best reasons not to are statistically dwarfed.
Mr.Panda
Active member
In the USA at least it is really REALLY fucking expensive to try and put someone to death. The immediate appellate process, the two part trial system, and the fact that people sit on death row because of the appeals process means they eat up more money sitting there causes it to get really REALLY expensive pretty damn fast.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
204 years of foreign policy says otherwise...
Anyway, call it however stupid you want,
Welcome to the United States of America.
Anyway, call it however stupid you want,
Welcome to the United States of America.
?!!?!!
Foreign policy is almost entirely pragmatic. Hence the near-impossibility of making a workable international legal system. I don't see the US signing on to the ICC. Foreign policy is about national interests, interventionism without some sort of identifiable payoff is basically a non-starter unless there is sufficient domestic political will. Africa's still waiting. Somehow, I think they're probably on their own.
Foreign policy is almost entirely pragmatic. Hence the near-impossibility of making a workable international legal system. I don't see the US signing on to the ICC. Foreign policy is about national interests, interventionism without some sort of identifiable payoff is basically a non-starter unless there is sufficient domestic political will. Africa's still waiting. Somehow, I think they're probably on their own.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
Lol, JD if only you grew up in the United States of America.
"Foreign policy is almost entirely pragmatic." This is true. For every country other than the United States of America.
For 204 years since the Monroe Doctrine, no since the founding of our country, we have always believed our Country represented a "Beacon of Liberty" from which other countries may model themselves after.
Yes its quite the cocky view, but we are in fact the only country founded upon virtue-- our actual establishment of soveriengty was an act in promoting ideals, among them Locke's, Hamilton's, Adams', and Madison's. This has never once been duplicated in history-- all other countries were founded in the act of securing borders, or some other pragmatic approach. After all, it would have been far more "pragmatic" for the United States to remain a British colony.
And because of our "arrogance" and our belief that we are far more a principled country than any other, that our ideas such as the state must be held accountable to the same ethics as individuals, that we have complete disregard for raison d'etat, that for 108 years we remained isolationist, has heavily influenced our foreign policy.
And that was my point, that if you look at our foreign policy for the past 200 years, you will see a pattern emerge. That pattern embedded in our leaders' decisions reflects our fundamental belief that humans have natural rights and that our country transcends "power politics", balance of power, realism, or any other pragmatic approach to diplomacy.
Foreign policy for most countries is about national interests. For us, a large part has to do with spreading our ideas and principles which perhaps does not follow most of the day-to-day desires of "domestic political will." We intervene, perhaps not recently, more often than any other country without some sort of identifiable payoff-- most people just don't recognize it.
We dedicate more money and manpower to humanitarian aid than the rest of G20 combined. We established the UN. 99% of the World Bank is funded by us. IMF is almost 100% us. Though well publicized, the humanitarian aid of any other country is negligible compared to just the actions of the United States Navy. None of these things have given us any sort of identifiable payoff, all they do is drain our money and attract flak from other leaders. Nobody publicizes it. The American people don't care. International individuals reject it. It creates an unfair expectation in the UN that we ought to fund things. So why do we do it? Because of virtue and principle.
"Foreign policy is almost entirely pragmatic." This is true. For every country other than the United States of America.
For 204 years since the Monroe Doctrine, no since the founding of our country, we have always believed our Country represented a "Beacon of Liberty" from which other countries may model themselves after.
Yes its quite the cocky view, but we are in fact the only country founded upon virtue-- our actual establishment of soveriengty was an act in promoting ideals, among them Locke's, Hamilton's, Adams', and Madison's. This has never once been duplicated in history-- all other countries were founded in the act of securing borders, or some other pragmatic approach. After all, it would have been far more "pragmatic" for the United States to remain a British colony.
And because of our "arrogance" and our belief that we are far more a principled country than any other, that our ideas such as the state must be held accountable to the same ethics as individuals, that we have complete disregard for raison d'etat, that for 108 years we remained isolationist, has heavily influenced our foreign policy.
And that was my point, that if you look at our foreign policy for the past 200 years, you will see a pattern emerge. That pattern embedded in our leaders' decisions reflects our fundamental belief that humans have natural rights and that our country transcends "power politics", balance of power, realism, or any other pragmatic approach to diplomacy.
Foreign policy for most countries is about national interests. For us, a large part has to do with spreading our ideas and principles which perhaps does not follow most of the day-to-day desires of "domestic political will." We intervene, perhaps not recently, more often than any other country without some sort of identifiable payoff-- most people just don't recognize it.
We dedicate more money and manpower to humanitarian aid than the rest of G20 combined. We established the UN. 99% of the World Bank is funded by us. IMF is almost 100% us. Though well publicized, the humanitarian aid of any other country is negligible compared to just the actions of the United States Navy. None of these things have given us any sort of identifiable payoff, all they do is drain our money and attract flak from other leaders. Nobody publicizes it. The American people don't care. International individuals reject it. It creates an unfair expectation in the UN that we ought to fund things. So why do we do it? Because of virtue and principle.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
I'm asian so I can type fast. My flag is only the mini desk kind.
n-a-i-v-e
You think its naive, go back and study American history more in depth. At first its a naive notion. Then you learn policy is almost always dictated by realism. Then, if you're smart enough to read as much as you can, you'll realize American actions don't make sense according to that view point.
And now who is the n-a-i-v-e one?
America Fuck, nevermind. Foreign nationals...
n-a-i-v-e
You think its naive, go back and study American history more in depth. At first its a naive notion. Then you learn policy is almost always dictated by realism. Then, if you're smart enough to read as much as you can, you'll realize American actions don't make sense according to that view point.
And now who is the n-a-i-v-e one?
America Fuck, nevermind. Foreign nationals...
ElbridgeGerry
Active member
Someones a bit bitter about losing...
charmander_sucks
Member
Only if its you buddy!
Bob_Gnarley
Active member
ITT: JD gets fucking owned!