213374U

Oops. I thought you were addressing me. That's egocentrism for you! I'm not too good at composing texts, but I'm going to try and address your points without chopping up your post, so bear with me. I think we can agree that societies must protect themselves from undesirable elements. In this vein, the state is constructed to protect society, and so we invest the state with the power to suppress individuals and groups. However, nobody likes when the power to lop one's head off is wielded frequently and arbitrarily. So human communities make up rules, codify them to different extents, and appoint people to act on those rules under different guises. The thing is, those rules are pretty arbitrary themselves, often incoherent among themselves and the popular sentiment, and strongly influenced by how the intellectual elite of the time believes things should be done. That's "morals", and yes, that makes me a relativist at heart. I do realize how pointless and paralyzing this stance is. That said, I understand the need for the state to exist and that this existance implies that wills (and lives) will be quashed due to the inherent imperfection of the system and, ultimately, to the fact that irreconcilable postures exist. So the power of the state to judge and break the individual isn't as much a "right" as it is a necessity to prevent the state from collapsing and society as we know it along with it. You know, my skin crawls when people refer to "rights", because the word is very emotionally loaded, and exploited because of this. It causes a different impression to, for example, "prerogative" or "privilege" and yet, what in the past were prerogatives now are rights, and in the future may be neither. I don't like how "right" gets thrown around as if somehow, nature guaranteed those as it ensures that stuff will fall downwards. And of course, rights are free and we shouldn't have to work to earn them. OH NOES! I'm rambling again. The fundamental problem I see with the death penalty in a society which claims to treasure individual life so is one of consistency. A system cannot, in my opinion, have the "right to live" at its core and make its protection the #1 priority, and then accept that, in the process of enforcing that protection, lives will be taken when there are alternatives. That's one contradiction I simply cannot get over. The catch is, this teeny weeny bit of doublethink destroys the superior moral authority from which the state purportedly draws its legitimacy. Ah, crap. It was all so easy when laws were given directly by God. But with this pesky logic ruling our affairs nowadays, things are so much trickier. You asked for specifics. I can't give you any. I don't know the impact that increasing or decreasing the severity of penalties would have on the effectiveness of punitive justice as an element of social order, probably because each individual has different thresholds and it's impossible to establish a single rule that fits everyone. I'd rather err on the side of excess, though. But the harshest penalties one can imagine are still not guaranteed to dissuade all. As for what to do with the stars of your examples, I thought my stance was pretty clear. In case it wasn't. I love the rhetorics used to explain and justify it, too. Old skool stuff. Hey! What's the internet coming to if I can't even stroke my ego now? But, if not philosophy, not statistics, not ethics, then... what do you want to base your argument for the death penalty on? For the record, I didn't dodge the question. I simply attempted to make it clear that opinions on whether death is better or worse than X are simply that... opinions. Uninformed opinions, at that. And as for Gorgon's example, do a search on "concentration camps suicide". Of course nobody wants to die when sitting comfortably in front of a TV, without having to work for a living. Start turning the comfort dial down, though... Oh, and now that you mention it, I've been contemplating a handle change. Seeing as I couldn't think of anything more retarded than my current one (or those used for alts), we'll have to live with it for now. In the meantime, I recommend that you, er, use the quote button.

Do I? As a matter of fact, I sustain that a comparison cannot be established at all. You cannot say which is "better" or "worse" between something and nothing, you know, what with 0 ≠ ∅ and all. Punitive and rehabilitative values for death are null, however, as a consequence of ending the subject's life. In fact, I wouldn't be qualified to make that jugdement even if I had been in jail, as I would have a partial experience only. And if the man in your example was facing a life without hope or future under harsh conditions, perhaps the answer would not be what you think. Time flies when one is speculating wildly and making unverifiable statements, doesn't it?

And here I thought I was bitter inside.

Bloodlines did this. It garnered massive amounts of whining, despite fitting the setting perfectly. I applaud the devs for their bravery, but foresee loads of nerdrage as a result.

No. I object to the notion that moral authority has anything to do with democracy - a manichaeism often used by populists and demagogues (not implying that you are either, btw). See the French Revolution. As "bad" as dying? That's as bold a statement as it is random, given that nobody really knows how "bad" dying is. All we know is that it's pretty permanent. Note that, again, I'm not arguing against the death penalty from a merciful stance, here. It's debatable whether death is a punishment at all for some people (as evidenced by some folks actually killing themselves in order to avoid punishment). On the other hand, it's hard to argue that indefinite imprisonment (w/ forced labor preferably thrown in for flavor) is an ineffective way of implementing punitive (as opposed to rehabilitative) justice, and it also has the advantage of being reversible as long as the inmate is alive. Yes, that's a fair point. Of course, this is subject to opinion, but I think that this is precisely why we finance a state to begin with. Administering the judicial and penitentiary system isn't meant to be cost-effective from a monetary perspective. Exercises of public power aren't, with the exception of tributes... we do need most of those functions, though.

Yeah, if this is your first time with it, vanilla is fine. The singleplayer campaign is relatively short anyway, and it doesn't have great replay value. Which is the reason why MP mods (Discovery chief among them) are designed with MP in mind only.

Oh, yeah. Dead people can't hurt anyone. So why don't we just wait until they die of old (in jail)? Considering that the death penalty offers no added deterrence value, what's the point? Is there any, other than cost-effectiveness? I find it odd that you ask that we talk to cops to convince us about how horrible some crimes are, when you said that there's no room for an "emotional merciful reaction" in those cases. But there is for one that calls for blood? Or is talking to cops going to somehow make facts different from when they are simply read about? Between this and your defense of a "democratically established" superior moral standard... I don't know what to make of this anymore man.

Yes, that's my opinion as well. I couldn't have worded it better. That said, these cases are, fortunately, rare in proportion to the amount of total crimes committed - which allows the state to maintain social order and peace without a just and effective way of dealing with this kind of criminals. So the state isn't really failing... I don't think anyone could promise a state in which 100% security is guaranteed. Efficiency could be improved, that's for damn sure. No. A case-by-case approach isn't valid here. You are proposing that we invest the state with the power to terminate the lives of its subjects, regardless of the circumstances. Given that legislation is never watertight and fail-proof, errors will be made and what's worse, it will be exploited. So the root of the question is: should the state be allowed to execute innocents so it doesn't have to bear the economic burden of prisoner upkeep? And also there's the other side of the coin: criminals deserving of the death penalty that for whatever reasons will get more lenient sentences. Pretty picture, isn't it? I think that in a justice system that's far from perfect, imposing the absolute, ultimate sentence is simply absurd. That amounts to little more than lynching. "Democratic" justice is an aberration. Especially in OUR configuration of democracy.

Only now we know that psychopaths and other criminals simply cannot be rehabilitated... beatings or not.

Yeah that's the easy way to go about it - it's also the wrong way. Once you introduce the provision for the death penalty in the system, you introduce the possibility that it will be abused. And so you have, in all but letter, legalised murder. You can always pull that man out of the cell. Further, it's my opinion that simply executing some people is letting them off too easy. I'm not jumping in the "humane" wagon here. You can produce any number of atrocities that would support your case for the death penalty. It only takes one instance where it was applied unjustly and the whole argument crumbles. It's a kind of fundamental disagreement over what's acceptable and what isn't - appeals to emotion are accessory and distracting.

No. Just a greater inclination to pontificate, apply double standards and hypocrisy in general.

If only that were true. Instead, it's just a measure of our mastery of mass (self-)deceit and double standards. It's also a measure of the investigative skills of journalists. This is fallacious. I wouldn't like to live in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, but not necessarily because of sharia. I wouldn't have a problem with living in, for instance, Heinlein's SST society. Now, look me in the eye and tell me you wouldn't want to kick some bug ass in one of those sexy power armours.

Military action is seldom enacted against the populace of the state carrying out said action (civil war), which makes it an unfair comparison. Further, when military force is used, the purpose is not to remove elements that are not cost-effective for the state to maintain (which is the main argument you are using to explore the legitimacy of the death penalty), but to force surrender of an enemy by destroying their ability or will to keep on fighting. Ideally, this would be accomplished with a minimum of loss of life. And that's assuming a war of aggression. As for the unavoidable deaths due to medical error or malpractice, the alternative would be not to have any medical practice, yes? You aren't seriously trying to put disadvantages of not having any medical practice and not having any executions on the same level, are you? Forced labor. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

I'm in the same boat. In my case it's just that I'm lazy as ****. Can't get any sort of work done that involves any degree of boredom, at all. Physical work I'm fine with, though. Anyway, when things are looking bad, I resort to ancient wisdom: "Hard work often pays off after time, laziness always pays off now"

How are you gentlemen !!

I'm sure you could have found these yourself... Got them from the official site. I've been a bit too quick to jump to conclusions before. This isn't a strategy game from what I've seen. Apparently there's no ground combat whatsoever?

Yep. While moral relativism is right that there are no universal, undisputable moral truths, this is completely useless from an utilitarian point of view. That's how I see it, too. Yeah. Playing a true "by-the-book" Paladin is leaving yourself wide open for "exploitation" from the DM...

Ooh, so it's that time! Okay, lemme try: Why was six afraid of seven? Also: what the *** is wrong with the :ph34r: emote?? (asterisks added for DRAMA)

Spandex, actually. :ph34r:

Perhaps he objects to not being tortured properly? That must be it. I mean, if you're going to go through that, the least they can do is be professional about it. There's only one thing worse than torture: not being able to brag about it afterwards.

Don't you try to deny quite open facts!

Armies and ethics don't get along well.

After kq3's (and gabs') comments, I couldn't resist to give FOT another spin, Tough Guy style. And you know there just ain't nothing tougher than a big, bad, green mutie. I'm playing a mod that allows you to start off as a Super Mutant, and it's pretty cool. I'm disappointed the game won't let me dual wield miniguns or even rocket launchers, though! Also playing the awesome TIE Fighter Total Conversion for XWA, and a coop game of Civ IV - Warlords with a friend. Yep, the AI cheating is still at stupid levels, but now they gang up on you if you refuse to be their bitch!

After purposefully joining the Armed Forces and willfully giving up a good portion of his personal freedoms?!? Yeah, I guess he could.