Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by EdgeCreeper (#49281865) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

Do you think I think the words don't matter in describing those two situations you gave, of course not!

Then why did you treat them that way?

Because your example is completely different. In the original comments case he used murder to describe executions, any reader would still know it is an execution, the word 'murder' just carries emotional connotations in this case. In your example I guess the words you would be referring to is 'I got $10000', so if someone said this to someone they would not know how they got it. If it was option 1 from your post, then the audience would have no idea that it was from bashing an old lady over the head. Or if option two, given the money. That answer is not analogous, it only looks the similar in the most superficial way.

It is interesting that you had to make that stuff up to answer me

It's perfectly reasonable to take your rhetorical construction and to apply it to another scenario so you can see the flaws in what you said.

As I have answered previously, it is not the same. A construct, like a program, does not have to be valid on all inputs. The example you gave, wasn't alike. The construct was not the same either, you replaced it with a generalization for all words, it was specific to that case. I am repeating this but, in the original comment 'murder' carried an emotional connotation, in your example the audience would not have had a clue what really happened.

is totally irrelevant, using the word 'murder' does not change the information someone reading that comment gets from it

Of course it matters. Words mean things. The reason we have different expressions to convey the concept of murder and the concept of the execution of a death sentence carried out against someone who chose to commit murder is: those are not the same things! Labeling them as if they are, and tainting your communication with the connotation of a word chosen when you know it's an inaccurate, agenda-loaded word choice meant to bias understanding of what's said, is not just some breezy situation to dismiss as if it's some linguistic quirk or just the act of someone who's got a childlike vocabulary and doesn't know better.

One chooses the word "murder" to describe an act because one thinks the act is actually murder, and wants to persuade others to perceive it the same way. Don't play dumb like you can't tell the difference.

If you wanted to use neutral language, then you would use 'unlawful deliberate killing' for what the criminal did and 'lawful deliberate killing' for what the state did. But generally people don't talk like that. Most people can cope with communication that has emotional connotations with it.

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by EdgeCreeper (#49275131) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

No, I'm saying that making a guy spend part of every day working to feed and house the person who raped is wife to death is evil.

It is a tax burden that everyone shares, you'd be crazy to think someone was deliberately making the victim pay it, that statement about making the victim spend part of every working day paying the murderer is hyperbole. Do you think it will be that much better for the hypothetical husband if the hypothetical murderer was put to death? I don't. It won't be sunshine and roses for the husband, we both know that. Compensating the victim is a much better thing for them than having the perpetrator executed, and the victim would have gained money then, much more than their own taxes go to the murderer, so it wouldn't be like having the victim pay the perp at all. Yes, it is at a small expense to individual taxpayers, but it is nice to have a social security net.

I do believe having inalienable basic rights for everyone including the right to life, trumps the cost of keeping the criminals locked up rather than having them executed. The cost of keeping a dangerous person in jail does give me pause for thought, also whether someone's life in jail is any good. It isn't convincing me at the moment, simply because the cost does not seem all that great, compared to throwing basic rights away.

Also, I noticed you skipped the bit about judging a life to be worth a pretty small amount, you do seem eager to have people killed.

Also, this discussion has been about the worst murderers, because those are the only examples you gave, so you could give them the vilest description. These are not the only people on death row. There are people who are on death row because they trafficked drugs for example, yes this is in another country. The discussion is far from complete without mentioning this.

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by EdgeCreeper (#49274471) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

Do you apply the same muddle-headed moral relativism to all topics?

Name calling in the first sentence. Wonderful.

Let's say you've got $10,000 in your hands:

1) It was the life savings of a little old lady, and you beat her over the head, killing her, and took it.

or

2) Someone very wealthy liked you, and gave it to you.

Doesn't really matter the words we use to describe what led to you having $10,000, right? Because all that matters is you now have $10,000. It's the same outcome! Whew, glad that all of those pesky value judgements are safely out of the equation from now on. The end justifies the means! How and why no longer matter, just the results! Thank you for making everything so simple, now.

Wow, way to misrepresent me. Do you think I think the words don't matter in describing those two situations you gave, of course not! It is interesting that you had to make that stuff up to answer me, it is totally tangential, and has nothing to do with what I said. You didn't say why your example was equivalent to what I said, did you? That's rather dishonest.

I did say that it didn't matter whether neilo called execution 'murder', this is because anyone who reads it knows it is an execution. It doesn't matter whether he called it 'killing' or 'murdering' in this case, because the information conveyed was the same. Thus you saying that:

What you're showing, here, is that you don't actually understand what the word "murder" means.

is totally irrelevant, using the word 'murder' does not change the information someone reading that comment gets from it, so who cares that he used it, maybe you could have come up with an actual counter argument instead.

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by EdgeCreeper (#49261017) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

Yes, that was the most humane way mentioned in the documentary 'How to kill a human being'. The documentary had a British MP who set out to find out more about executions and how to do it more humanely. In the end the MP met with one of the death penalty supporters and proposed nitrous oxide as a better way to execute someone, but the death penalty supporter disagreed saying that he wants it to be as painful as possible. I wholeheartedly recommend watching this documentary to get a better idea of what really goes on when someone is executed.

Comment: Re:HOWTO (Score 1) 1081

by EdgeCreeper (#49260875) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

Depriving a person of a future is punishment. Someone who has decided to, and has murdered other people, and who wakes up each morning and has breakfast anyway, is definitely going to be punished by having all of his future days removed. Forcing the families of the people he's murdered to go to work each day to pay some taxes to keep alive, and feed breakfast to, the person who wrecked their lives - that is punishment for the victims.

Your advocating killing them for the reason of not paying a small tax burden? That is judging a life to be worth a pretty small amount, probably far less than the reasons the murderer had for killing someone.

Comment: Re:Hurrah for science! (Score 1) 201

by EdgeCreeper (#39287225) Attached to: Training an Immune System To Kill Cancer: a Universal Strategy

Contrary to what protestants in general, and American ones in particular, want to believe, this isn't usually enough by any means. You see, any major literary author or work, such as Shakespeare, requires a ton of research to be properly understood, so much so you have entire academic departments dedicated to properly analyzing them.

What a waste. It would be much better to put on an entertaining show based on those works.

What do people get out of this "understanding" anyway?

Comment: Re:the interesting part of Berners-Lee's comment (Score 1) 151

by EdgeCreeper (#39002523) Attached to: Texas Jury Strikes Down Man's Claim to Own the Interactive Web

The constitution explicitly says that congress can only allow patents to further progress.
So a patent that blocks critical progress in our society would mean that the law that allowed the patent is unconstitutional, no?

Sooo, only patents that can be worked around are constitutional, unless they're worthless, right? After all, society would still run without the "interactive web", you just wouldn't have nice things. I bet that the patent would have stood up in court if it had been enforced much earlier, when it was new and only a few people were using it.

"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_

Working...