• @jensens you also said psyke wark instead of psychiatric ward along with lots of other errors, you can't blame me for the misunderstanding lol, sorry.


  • @thestrangest yeah i want realy talking about people that kill with a reason. altho the reason never justifies the action i was talking about people that just kill becous they can and want. sorry for the bad english autocorrect is killing me i speak dutch normaly. could we talk more in chat i like your point of view.


  • @jensens there is no difference between the 2, the result is the same and the penalty should be the same except for the "to put isolated cell or not? That is the question" part


  • @thestrangest i do think there is a differance between with and withour a reason. if hypotheticaly somone kills his daughter and gets free becouse of an error in court and the father kills the guy who killed his daughter or just somoine who killed this guys daughter just becous he felth like it.


  • @jensens said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest i do think there is a differance between with and without a reason. if hypotheticaly somone kills his daughter, gets freed because of an error in court and the father kills the guy who killed his daughter or just somone who killed this guys daughter just because he felt like it.

    What are you even trying to say do?


  • @jensens the father killed a guy that was trying to kill the guy that killed his daughter?


  • @thestrangest no ,so this guy let call him peter kills a girl lets cal her abby ( peter kills abby just becouse she happend to be near hil when he decided he wanted to kill somoine) and peter goes to court to be punished ofr killing abby. but somoine made an errer while handeling the case he goes free (happens in belgium a lot) so the father of abby called roger decides he can not deal with peter just walking away and not getting punished so roger goes out to kill peter.


  • @jensens said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest no ,so this guy lets call him peter kills a girl lets call her Abby ( peter kills Abby just because she happend to be near him when he decided he wanted to kill someone) and Peter goes to court to be punished for killing Abby. but someone made an error while handeling the case and he goes free (happens in belgium a lot) so the father of Abby called Roger decides he can not deal with Peter just walking away and not getting punished so roger goes out to kill Peter.

    And he kills Peter... yeah that's wrong but i guess since it is unlikely that he'll kill someone else the penalty shouldn't be that severe, like between 1 and 5 years in Jail or however much it is necessary for people to understand that they should leave these kinds of things to the law


  • @thestrangest yhea but thats the problem the law failed. so why would he think after 5 years i sould have left it to the law hen the law just let him go becouse the date on one of the documents was wrong.


  • @jensens because if everyone took the law into their own hands that would be Anarchy, hell, so to avoid that there should be no exceptions but a system put in place where you yourself can even sue the judge(that's how it is in the states).


  • @jensens this is a harder topic. I began talking about the death penalty being justified or nit and now I'm at whatever this is


  • @thestrangest dont you like a hard topic? i think is the death penalty fair is a pretty hard topic too.
    In belgium you can not sue a judge. a judge can not be prosecuted for mistakes or misjudgemen. there are other things you can do but i dont have the words for it in english.


  • @jensens no it's just that I'm a philosophy geek, this started off more philosophical and now it is more political and judicial so i have 0 experience with dis. The amount of time a person should serve is hard to approximate...

    well then you should then try to change your gouvernment, protest or something like that in that case


  • @thestrangest with that reasoning there is nobody that should speak with you because there is nobody that is actually a philosopher. I know it sounds mad or something but I don't know how to make so it doesn't sound like I am attacking you. I do need to say you are actually good a philosophy


  • @jensens said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest with that reasoning there is nobody that should speak with you because there is nobody that is actually a philosopher.

    Philosophy is something everybody does everyday at some point or another, but only people who intensively study how to philosophize are called philosophers. The point is that everybody can philosophize therefore everyone can debate with me. What are people with degrees in philosophy called?... Philosophers, I found a guy with a bachelor's degree in philosophy(A.K.A. technically a philosopher) once on this site but that doesn't mean he has the right to debate me but someone else doesn't

    I know it sounds mad or something but I don't know how to make so it doesn't sound like I am attacking you. I do need to say you are actually good at philosophy

    Thanks I guess


  • I support the death penalty. If someone takes time to plan to kill someone else then the killer is too dangerous to keep alive. The only alternative I can think of is offer this person a job as an assassin and send them off to another country and reek havoc, but that seems like more senseless killing. So I stick with my original point, yes I support the ending of the life of a dangerous killer.


  • @jacob55 said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    I support the death penalty. If someone takes time to plan to kill someone else then the killer is too dangerous to keep alive. The only alternative I can think of is offer this person a job as an assassin and send them off to another country and reek havoc, but that seems like more senseless killing. So I stick with my original point, yes I support the ending of the life of a dangerous killer.

    I'd just copy paste my original argument but I'd like to just point out that it's kind of like the possibility of keeping the people alive, in jail, without killing them, just flew over your head. Ok here is my previous explanation for why the death penalty is inhumane:

    @thestrangest said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @layla I believe the death penalty is inhumane

    That is a video on the perspectives on the topic

    I'll quote someone then continue

    "From a determinist perspective, consequentialism is a logically preferable theory. Any form of retributivism relies on the concept of free will, because if a person had no choice not to perform an action then they can't really be held accountable, and therefore do not deserve any punishment. So I would argue that we have to adopt a consequentialist stance if we are to implement a system of punishment because the justifications of encouraging rehabilitation and deterring future crimes withstand negation of the idea that the criminal is to blame." Therefore the death penalty doesn't make sense, you can prevent any further crime of being committed by a certain murderer without killing him, just keep him in prison and then if he is deemed rehabilitated then let him go. It's that simple, any other actions would be immoral, it is causing unnecessary suffering and causing unnecessary suffering IS the definition of evil to a secularist, it is inhumane.


  • @thestrangest So in essence, there is no true justice?


  • @jacob55 said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest So in essence, there is no true justice?

    there is no objective morality nor justice therefore it depends on what you base your justice system on, i explained why it should be consequentialist and in a determinist consequentialist world view what i said is totally fine


  • @thestrangest Understood