andygardener Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 No it's not, at all. It is self-evident that it would not be a moral, just and civilised legal system, that I agree with. It would clearly be a corrupt legal system and those who opposed it would have to make a moral choice to do so - hence the whole point of the question. Once again - the point is that somewhere between the death penalty and the ludicrous punishment I described Jeffrey would (I imagine) draw a moral line and stop just accepting the legal system as is. Therefore, what he said was inexact. No strawman. You are conflating legal system with barbarism, and barbarism that only exits in north korea now, repulsive as muslim countries legal codes are they still exclude punishment of innocent third parties ( though their punishment of victims is vile and is a more valid point of argument on this issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 You are conflating legal system with barbarism, and barbarism that only exits in north korea now, repulsive as muslim countries legal codes are they still exclude punishment of innocent third parties ( though their punishment of victims is vile and is a more valid point of argument on this issue). To prove to you that I am not and that you are reading way more into what I am saying please try this. Andy believes that the legal system in Garndenia should be accepted in total and not questioned. That legal system includes the death penalty for drug smugglers. Morally speaking Andy is happy with that, no problem. The politicians suddenly change their minds and introduce a new punishment for drug smugglers that includes executing 10 children at random (or insert whichever ridiculous punishment you like as this part is just a ludicrous and deliberately extreme example and, therefore, unimportant). Andy is now not happy and no longer feels that the legal system in Gardenia should be accepted in total and not questioned. Under these kind of circumstances we would (I hope) all go through the same process as Andy thus negating what Jeffrey claimed to be the case. That's it... full stop. I'm not conflating anything with anything. I'm just pointing out that what Jeffrey said may not be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 To prove to you that I am not and that you are reading way more into what I am saying please try this. Andy believes that the legal system in Garndenia should be accepted in total and not questioned. That legal system includes the death penalty for drug smugglers. Morally speaking Andy is happy with that, no problem. The politicians suddenly change their minds and introduce a new punishment for drug smugglers that includes executing 10 children at random (or insert whichever ridiculous punishment you like as this part is just a ludicrous and deliberately extreme example and, therefore, unimportant). Andy is now not happy and no longer feels that the legal system in Gardenia should be accepted in total and not questioned. Under these kind of circumstances we would (I hope) all go through the same process as Andy thus negating what Jeffrey claimed to be the case. That's it... full stop. I'm not conflating anything with anything. I'm just pointing out that what Jeffrey said may not be accurate. Introduction of accepted innocents into the punishment renders a system illegal so for the n'th time it's a strawman, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Introduction of accepted innocents into the punishment renders a system illegal so for the n'th time it's a strawman, Okay then, explain how it is a strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Okay then, explain how it is a strawman. It is not a strawman. You have made the point logically and eloquently. It seems that the point is conveniently ignored by (the unfortunately majority of) people when discussing the punishment of other people they don't like. The cognitive dissonance of this attitude is plain to see on this very forum. "Sharia Law is barbaric and has no place in our country" ... "Thieves should have their hands chopped off!" It's a response to people they don't like rather than a consistency of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Okay then, explain how it is a strawman. Can you seriously not see how "legislation that made the penalty for drug smuggling the execution of every child in the smuggler's family plus another random ten children identified by lottery" is not an example of a lawful punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 I started this off and am very grateful for the contributions. I am pretty ambivalent about the death penalty but have, I think, come to a point were I believe the death penalty could never be re introduced into this country. My reasons for this are that any jury would be lkely to acquit if they believed the guilty person would be executed. The legal process would then be unfair a guilty people would go free. If I am right does this mean the British jury has become so liberal and weak spirited that it no longer able to fulfill its remit, OR is it a sign of a progressive humane society.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Can you seriously not see how "legislation that made the penalty for drug smuggling the execution of every child in the smuggler's family plus another random ten children identified by lottery" is not an example of a lawful punishment? Lawful according to who? Remember, we are in a hypothetical scenario in which a corrupt regime has already deemed it to be lawful. You still haven't explained how I made a strawman argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Lawful according to who? Remember, we are in a hypothetical scenario in which a corrupt regime has already deemed it to be lawful. You still haven't explained how I made a strawman argument. The strawman is the hypothetical scenario you have thrown up which has nothing to do with legal systems and relates to a hypothetical corrupt barbarous regime which murders random children by lottery. That's nothing to do with the subject of not be able to pick and choose which laws we wish to obey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 The strawman is the hypothetical scenario you have thrown up which has nothing to do with legal systems and relates to a hypothetical corrupt barbarous regime which murders random children by lottery. That's nothing to do with the subject of not be able to pick and choose which laws we wish to obey. That's not a strawman though is it? A strawman is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It could only be a strawman if I was claiming that just because you accept the death penalty you also would accept the hypothetical scenario when, in fact, I am suggesting the exact opposite of that would be true. I am not misrepresenting anybody's position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.