Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[drbrumley]

Yo will never get me to agree with your statement. A crime requires intent. The bible says do not murder, it does not say do not kill. I hope you understand the difference.

You have to have a victim for it to be a crime. :up:

 

[Stripe]

I think sometimes you just run your finger down the page of whatever list of logical fallacies you found somewhere once, on the internet or in a little pamphlet maybe. Maybe someone gave it to you as a present, or out of pity. Who knows? Anyway, mostly it seems like you just run a finger down it until you see a word you like and that's what you write.

Nope. The accusation of "unwillingness" does not follow from "rightness."

It's peculiar that you would think it does.

Rather, it mostly reflects what he actually believes, as opposed to what he only wants to or needs to believe, or wants or needs others to believe he believes.

:dizzy:

Luckily, we don't have to try to decipher what this mish-mash means. You took a presumption of "unwillingness" and linked that to "rightness." A classic example of non sequitur .

Now you're talking about what he believes, or something.

But that's not the parallel.

That's right. It's not a parallel. It's an example of non sequitur.

That's how you study the logical veracity of a statement; you reduce it to the simplest form possible. For example, of you'd ever studied logic, the form they prefer is like:
If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B.

Not a parallel, an example.

With non sequitur it's not usually possible to reduce things that far, as the analysis relies on knowing that the concepts have no rational connection. A and B can't be asserted to have no rational connection.

The parallel is that you believe people should eat at McDonald's. That God meant for them to, or you say they should, and He did and does. That it's actually good that they do. But then you never will or do eat there yourself.

Which might justify a charge of hypocrisy. But you didn't do that, did you?

Sure it does. Because the man who expects others to do a thing he calls right, or just, or necessary, and reserves a different course of action for himself isn't being honest with at least one party to the conversation. He doesn't believe himself.

Which is something that was never expressed. JR simply asserted the irrelevance of Brain's stupid question. It was irrelevant when it started; you're desperate to give it legs.

The death penalty is just, your squeamishness is irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

You're right, I should have worded that better.

The point I was trying to make was that when there is no death penalty, the only alternative is to give them "life," which, compared to hell, is freedom. In addition to that, when criminals who deserve death are put in prisons instead of executed, they retain the possibility (however slight) of breaking out of prison and committing a crime again (and this also applies to those who get out of prison for "good behavior," however rare). With such a system, criminals (as a rule of thumb) are all but guaranteed to go back to their life of crime.

Conceivably but as you say highly unlikely. And I think "good behavior" is not an option with life without parole. In any case, I suspect that in those rare occasions, we will still have fewer innocents killed than if we executed innocents at the same rate we are finding them now in the system.

Was it you who posted this in the other thread? Or was it someone else? I don't remember...

Either way, the point remains to be addressed that the death penalty is not a deterrent in those states because the punishments for the crimes are neither swift nor painful, and hardly enforced at that.

Yet the states that do not a death penalty, have a lower murder rate, this does not support this position. We should see the opposite.

Traditional violent crime is indeed rare in places such as Saudi Arabia due to their enforcement of a swift and certain death penalty.

However, could we please avoid conflating "sharia law" with "Biblical law"? Sharia law is a perversion of God's law, and is unjust in many ways.

I would be happy to remove both from the conversation but its TOL so that is not likely.

To steer away from this conflation, let's look at Singapore, who's population is around the size of Los Angeles, CA. Comparatively, they have a much lower crime rate than Los Angeles, due to the fact that they cane criminals, and do in fact have the death penalty, though it's hardly needed due to the low crime rates.

A very interesting data point and really a better approach to making this argument. Making comparisons of the US with the rest of the world is fraught with problems of course. While we have a correlation with swift justice here, is that the primary reason or are their other cultural issues.

The murder rate in the US is about 87th in the 219 countries tracked by the UN. Singapore comes in at 211, the United Kingdom with most of the same protections in its laws as the US is 170, Canada with even more protections than the US is 155, Japan comes in at 213, Iceland 212, Switzerland 205, Netherlands 190, Germany 184,

All these countries except Singapore have one thing in common, they either do not have a death penalty or the one they do have has safeguards and due process as long or longer than the US. Executing someone in Japan can take anywhere from seven to ten years with the record being 32 years by an inmate that died of old age on death row.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan

This would seem to indicate there are more cultural issues involved than just how swiftly justice is applied.

So you would agree with me that the goal of trying to stop or prevent crime is largely ineffective in, and I use this term loosely, "normal" societies?

I would disagree, crime overall in most "normal" societies has been in decline for decades. While it will never go to zero, there is no indication it is rising due to the lack of swift punishment. The US is an outlier in Western societies but since those societies have largely similar justice systems, the reason appears to be more due to cultural factors unique to the US.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

So what if the criminal escapes prison?

It is a possibility of course. It would be interesting to study how many innocents have been killed by someone escaping a high-security prison compared to the number of suspected falsely convicted people on death row and see which number is higher.

Which is why God said to weigh the evidence, using two or three witnesses to establish guilt.

If guilt for a capital crime can be established using two strong witnesses or three good witnesses, then the person can rightly be put to death. If no good witnesses can be found, then no guilt can be established, and the person will escape punishment.

You realize this standard of evidence is already in our current system yet innocent people continue to be falsely convicted.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. The accusation of "unwillingness" does not follow from "rightness."

His willingness or unwillingness to do what he asserts is right speaks to his conviction.

I really liked your McDonald's stab at that. It was a great set up for illustrating why. I can see why you erased that blackboard and are trying again. But I'd say it worked well enough and point back to it for anyone interested.

Luckily, we don't have to try to decipher what this mish-mash means.

How many of you are there anyway? And why don't you read more so you'll be better at it when the structure advances beyond a magazine level set out?

You took a presumption of "unwillingness" and linked that to "rightness." A classic example of non sequitur .

No, that's your attempt. I never said if you're unwilling it can't be right. What I've said is that if you believe in something, rather say that you believe in it, but fail to follow through in the actual doing you're like someone who cries, "Lord, Lord!" but never gets around to more than the vocalization.

That has a way of not working out.

Now you're talking about what he believes, or something.

It's of a piece. All we have here before us is what we believe and, if we're very lucky, why.

Which might justify a charge of hypocrisy. But you didn't do that, did you?

I don't think he's a hypocrite. I think he wants to believe something that I have reason to suspect he doesn't on some level, because the pronouncement he would have to make (and given he won't have to do more than that the reluctance is even more striking) but does not bring himself to make is telling.

The death penalty is just, your squeamishness is irrelevant.

The DP invites foreseeable injustice. In the absence of necessity, or the present ability to secure an absolute certainty, we should refrain.

 

[Town Heretic]

Please post the Bible verses that state that someone that eats shellfish is to be put to death.
Failure to do so will prove that your shellfish argument is a strawman argument.

It won't if you understand how it was used. It will if you misapply it.

 

[Stripe]

His willingness or unwillingness to do what he asserts is right speaks to his conviction.

His conviction has nothing to do with the rightness of the DP.

You're stuck in an argument that does not follow; a non sequitur.

You asked what it was called and you asked for it to be explained. There it is.

If you want a sensible discussion, you will start responding to what people say, not what you wish they would say.

At no point did JR say anything that could be construed as showing a lack of conviction, which exposes a separate fallacy on your part.

I really liked your McDonald's stab at that. It was a great set up for illustrating why. I can see why you erased that blackboard and are trying again. But I'd say it worked well enough and point back to it for anyone interested.

:yawn:

Darwinists love declaring victory.

How many of you are there anyway?

:AMR:

I never said if you're unwilling it can't be right.

That's right. JR said his willingness was irrelevant. You disagreed. So the implication is that the rightness of the DP is linked to his willingness.

However, you've pretended the words he said are not what is being discussed.

What I've said is that if you believe in something, rather say that you believe in it, but fail to follow through in the actual doing you're like someone who cries, "Lord, Lord!" but never gets around to more than the vocalization.

It's of a piece. All we have here before us is what we believe and, if we're very lucky, why.

:AMR:

English, dude. English.

I don't think he's a hypocrite. I think he wants to believe something that I have reason to suspect he doesn't on some level, because the pronouncement he would have to make (and given he won't have to do more than that the reluctance is even more striking) but does not bring himself to make is telling.

And this all has nothing to do with the rightness of what he said.

No DP guarantees injustice.

In the absence of necessity, or the present ability to secure an absolute certainty, we should refrain.

We'll stick with God's ideas, not yours. He endorsed the DP.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[quip]

The real question is this:

Why do you, Arthur, think that criminals of any age should be able to escape the punishment DEATH for their crime just because they're "too young"?

Because it's an indictment against our sad culture, our pathetic values...wherefrom the troubled child no less beget his very action. Accruing violence to chasten violence only advances violence. It is a compounded, losing proposition, especially so considering the potential and impressibility of a young life.

The real answer is this: Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[drbrumley]

The Bible says that the state is responsible for executing the people that do evil.

Romans 13:3-5 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.​

The purpose is to rid the community of evil.

Deuteronomy 21:21 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.​

This purpose is two-fold:

1. Make the community safer by removing the evil one that is causing harm.
2. Stop the spread of evil ideas by a display of the consequences of doing evil.

That's interesting. Yet, rulers are a terror to good works. We see it over and over and over in the Bible and thruout history. So obviously there is alot more than just whipping out the ole Romans 13 schtict.

So, should I induce from your quotation of Romans 13 that Paul and the Apostles did something bad in order for them to get killed?


Is the state even authorized in scripture?

 

[Town Heretic]

His conviction has nothing to do with the rightness of the DP.

You're stuck in an argument that does not follow; a non sequitur.

Only if you piece it together to make a claim I didn't and use it as I haven't.

JR said his willingness was irrelevant.

Of course he did. And the Wizard of Oz said there was nothing to see behind the curtain that mattered.

You disagreed. So the implication is that the rightness of the DP is linked to his willingness.

Rather, what I meant was set out and more than once and that wasn't it. That was only what you wanted it to be so you could run down that list of yours, which is why you have to find it as an implication and not as an actual argument advanced by me.

No DP guarantees injustice.

That's a goal post move and a good one. The DP doesn't guarantee justice either. But where we have the DP we invite an injustice we cannot then correct.

We'll stick with God's ideas, not yours.

No, you'll stick with your notion that the DP is what God endorses for us. That's a very different thing.

 

[marhig]

The sword of the Spirit is a different sword entirely.


The sword of the Spirit is the word of God....which does not put sin to death as you claim. It's a piece of the armour of God with which we stand against the wiles of the devil.

Eph. 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.​

God's ministers don't go out killing people with literal swords. They preach the word of God

 

[marhig]

Why is that a bad thing?

If Paul says "governing authority," why would he not mean "governing authority?"



The Bible is a book about His-story, detailing events that did, in fact, happen. Why should it not be read literally? You wouldn't read a history schoolbook as if it was all spiritual, would you?



:noid:

As I said, Jesus said those who have ears to hear, hear.

Jesus used metaphors and the whole Bible has a deeper meaning. I'm not saying that things didn't literally happen, I'm saying that is a spiritual book and it has deeper meanings.

 

[marhig]

Executing children or teenagers is just plain BARBARIC . Wrong. Inexcusable. Unacceptable .
Unworthy of any nation that calls itself "civilized ".

Absolutely, is utterly barbaric. I can't believe that there are people here that would condone stoning people to death and killing 6 year old children!

 

[marhig]

I would because the LORD God declares that murderers should be put to death:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen. 9:6).​

Nothing about the LORD's command has changed since man is still made in the image of God.

What about you? Should we honor the LORD's commands and put murderers to death?

It's interesting how many of you go back to the old testament when it suits you, do you follow all the laws?

And no, I wouldn't kill anyone or put my hand to try and get anyone killed. Jesus came and taught love mercy and forgiveness, he taught us to love our enemies and to do good to those that hate us, bless those that curse us and pray for those who dispitefully use us. I leave any vengeance in God's hands although I wouldn't want anyone to be hurt or killed. If it was anything like premeditated murder I would want them locked up for life. Life should mean life in those circumstances.

What about those who have been executed and then it was found that they were innocent? What about their lives?

 

[marhig]

You believe that executing innocent children in the womb is "civilized" but that executing guilty people is "not civilized".

That's wrong too, we should never take a life. God gave life and God takes life.

 

[marhig]

Abortion is not the same thing as murdering a born human . And it is unstoppable and uncontrollable unlike laws against murder . Laws against abortion are simply unenforceable, unlike laws about murdering born people .
But executing children is just plain barbaric .

Yes it is, abortion is murder and when abortion is carried out then they are murdering an innocent baby that God has given life too. A baby is alive in the womb, abortion is wrong.

 

[marhig]

You really lose the faux outrage over abortion when you've no issue with children as young as six (or even younger possibly) being killed to the point of being stabbed to death for being "criminal". I'm not pro abort so you wanna drop that angle.

This has gotta be the most sickening thing ever on this forum, that I've seen anyway. Advocating for kids as young as six to be executed and even stabbed to death...

Words fail.

I agree, I don't think I've seen anything sickening on any forum I've been on. People who think that 6 year olds deserve capital punishment, even to be stabbed to death need help as they are not right in the head or heart!

 

[marhig]

You are appealing to emotions.

Innocent six year old children should not be put to death.
We are not talking about innocent children here.

So it's ok to stab a 6 year old to death in some circumstances?

 

[marhig]

And this is a straw man fallacy. Are you lot going for the full set?

This is what we believe: The law has not been abolished (notwithstanding the repeal of symbolic cleanliness statutes).

The law is still in full force.

What you are confused about is that the law is no longer the path presented to men to gain salvation. Salvation is through the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour, not through the law as previously.



And this is the passage people use to uphold their anti-Bible assertion that the law has been eradicated.

Then they assert their own standard of punishment for crimes. They don't condone "he without sin" or "go and sin no more" when asked what should happen to a murderer.

Hypocrites.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The law is still applicable yes, Jesus never abolished the law of God, but now we follow him in the Spirit. We don't put to death naturally but with the word of God. We fight sin within our own hearts and the Spirit gives us the word to help and fight others, and the laws are written in our hearts and in our minds as the Spirit helps us to turn from sin. Jesus didn't come to kill anyone but to save. And those who have his life within them will have his heart and they will want him to save others, not have them executed!

Seeing as you believe that the laws aren't abolished, then you should heed them. God said though shalt not kill, so we shouldn't put our hands to killing another, those who belong to God are here to bare witness to the truth and share the gospel and bring the life of Christ to others. We are not here to execute people or to want them executed.

Jesus was our example to follow and he didn't kill anyone. He came in love, peace, mercy and forgiveness and those who truly belong to him have his love and life in and through them and they won't be standing front row watching with popcorn as people are being executed!

 

[Stripe]

Of course he did.

And you disagreed, the implication being that his willingness is linked to the rightness of the DP.

Rather.

Oh, so now you don't disagree.

Make up you mind. Here it is again:

Whether I'm prepared to do so has nothing to do with it.

That says nothing about his willingness, it puts Brain's stupid question in its place. It makes no difference to the rightness of the DP what JR might do.

You say it does make a difference:

Of course it does.

This is to invoke the fallacy of non sequitur. It does not follow.

What I meant was set out and more than once and that wasn't it. That was only what you wanted it to be so you could run down that list of yours, which is why you have to find it as an implication and not as an actual argument advanced by me.

Well, that could be anything at this stage. Who knows what weird spin you want to put on the conversation or where it's hidden within your impenetrable dialogue.

It's all irrelevant. JR said what he said. Your response was a logical fallacy. You asked for clarification of where you went wrong and it's been spelled out. :thumb:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk