What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
That's hardly definitional.
-
I lean pretty hard left who is also pro death-penalty (IN VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES)
-
If the case has absolutely been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
All appeals have been exhausted.
-
Proof is absolutely undeniable.
-
Guilty party shows no remorse.
-
Crime is suffiently heinous (mass murder, child killing, serial killers, etc...)
-
A legitimate psychiatric board has deemed that there is little to no chance at rehabilitation nor does the guilty party show any inclination to want to rehabilitate.
if ALL those things are true, (plus some that I haven't even considered) then I would rather execute them than pay for their living expenses for the rest of their natural life, or worse see them released at the end of their sentance absolutely knowing that they'll do it again.
-
-
No proof is absolutely undeniable. Especially not in an age when generative AI will soon be able to fabricate evidence easily.
-
I think the way to respond is "what do you believe that most centrists don't" -- though I feel like centrists are varied enough that you'll have trouble with this.
-
That is absolutely true about AI. It's something that I'll have to think about. Thanks!
-
You are absolutely correct regarding AI. I hadn't considered that. It gives me something to think about. Thanks!
-
Ah, you must be a anarcho-monarchist anti-kakistocrat, are famed for their disbelief of bigfoot.
-
I'm not sure that Bentham's Bullhound is a leftist, he seems rather all over the place. This really isn't the sort of thing I see leftists in favour of animal welfare arguing for generally. Regardless of the specific charity recommended to solve the problem of torturous shrimp deaths, this article makes a compelling case that we must solve the problem somehow.
-
but it’s not like any sudden development occurs at the moment of birth.
You mean other than breathing its own air and no longer being physically connected to its mother's womb? I'd call that pretty significant. I would argue that the moment it breaths its first breath on its own rather than as a part of its mother's uterus, it becomes a murder victim, not an abortion.
-
I believe a person is their brain, and without a brain or equivalent construct, you have no moral weight. This is why I believe it's okay to eat plants. Bacteria, too, are outside of my moral horizon. Foetuses (in the first few weeks at least) similarly are okay to abort.
By brain I don't mean intelligence, just capacity for conscious feeling. I think stupid people are just as capable of feeling pain as smart people, so both are weighted similarly morally to me.
It seems reasonable to assert that a single neural cell is not enough on its own to produce consciousness, or if so then it's hardly any. So animals with trivial neural systems are less worthy than humans too. And so on up to large mammals with developed minds in a gradient. Some animals like elephants and whales might be capable of more feeling than humans, and together with their long lifespan might be worth more QALYs than a human altogether.
-
A lifetime imprisonment is more inhumane than a death sentence.
Change my mind.jpg
(If there is enough solid proof ofc. You can't roll back a death penalty)
-
I don't really see why breath is special.
-
Okay, to put it another way:
Once the child is born, it stops being literally a part of its mother and instead becomes an individual.
-
You don't even realize you are further proving my point and you're coming across as even more fake.
I started respectfully, just as at first, you appeared to be "just another leftist with some different opinion".
In reality, you're just another liberal apologists that is fine with genocide... And I am absolutely NOT going to be respectful to Zionists once your true colore are evident.
Your "point" was moot to begin with because you're not leftist. But you are a fake ally ready to backstab minorities
-
Is it moral to kill a 2-year old because the parents no longer want it?
I'm sure that abortion is fine for the first few months. After that, I am unsure either way, but I don't feel strongly enough to wish to see abortion rights curtailed at all. So this is largely academic.
-
Why do you assert this? Based on what moral framework? Is it morally okay to abandon a baby to the elements after birth, in favour of the autonomy of those who would raise it?
-
I suppose to me, one's moral weight is in their mind. If someone has no mind -- such as a brain-dead patient -- then they aren't really a person. Seeing as there's no reason to believe there's an immediate jump in neural development in a baby at the moment of birth, I do not believe it's a special moment for the baby in a moral accounting sense. So I don't think the baby becomes more intrinsically worthy of life at the precise moment it draws its first breath.
(For the parent, of course, it is a special moment, and in particular new options are available outside of the keep-or-abort dichotomy.)
As for being an individual, I don't really see how the child's autonomy is relevant. It's still fully dependent on its parents and society and could not function on its own.
-
Poor choice of words, perhaps. I meant those who generally share your political opinions in other respects. For instance, "anarcho-communist" or "libertarian"
-
A lifetime imprisonment is more inhumane than a death sentence.
Change my mind.jpg
Most death row inmates fight for their life all the way until execution. That's proof enough.
(If there is enough solid proof ofc. You can’t roll back a death penalty)
How is the verity of the conviction relate to how humane the punishment is?
-
There are some who call me Tim.
