Lindsay Sandiford to be executed

[andygardener]

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.

 

You used it as a counter to Jeffs position that we need to take the law as a whole and not pick and choose. Your responded with a scenario in which the government murdered children by lottery and questioned whether that "law" should be obeyed/challenged. However that's not a law, it would be random state murder so it has no place in a discussion of laws and hence it was a strawman argument to counter with - eg would you obey this "law", no, therefore your position that we must obey the law is wrong. Strawman.

[mikem8634]

You used it as a counter to Jeffs position that we need to take the law as a whole and not pick and choose. Your responded with a scenario in which the government murdered children by lottery and questioned whether that "law" should be obeyed/challenged. However that's not a law, it would be random state murder so it has no place in a discussion of laws and hence it was a strawman argument to counter with - eg would you obey this "law", no, therefore your position that we must obey the law is wrong. Strawman.

 

Why wouldn't random state murder be a law if a state passed it as such?

 

In order for my argument to be a strawman I would have to be misrepresenting somebody's position - I am not. Presenting a scenario which may or may not show somebody's position to be flawed or ill-considered is not the same thing.

[andygardener]

Why wouldn't random state murder be a law if a state passed it as such?

 

In order for my argument to be a strawman I would have to be misrepresenting somebody's position - I am not. Presenting a scenario which may or may not show somebody's position to be flawed or ill-considered is not the same thing.

 

Laws can criminalise certain actions and prescribe punishments for breaking them. In the sense of the word Jeffrey and I and everyone else is talking about they cannot proscribe punishment for those known to be innocent of any crime. That is not law.

[mikem8634]

Laws can criminalise certain actions and prescribe punishments for breaking them. In the sense of the word Jeffrey and I and everyone else is talking about they cannot proscribe punishment for those known to be innocent of any crime. That is not law.

 

That is not answering the question.

 

Hypothetically speaking, why wouldn't random state murder be a law if a state passed it as such?

[andygardener]

That is not answering the question.

 

Hypothetically speaking, why wouldn't random state murder be a law if a state passed it as such?

 

No, it would be random state murder. Just the same as if a state created a "tax" which involved state agents robbing random people at gunpoint it would be random robber by the state and not a tax. If a system moves beyond setting laws and punishing those who break them it ceases to be a legal system. So is outside of the debate. As I stated earlier the only country on earth which has such a system is NK and it cannot be described as a legal system, merely state sanctioned murder. The difference is important as how a reasonable person challenges such a system is completely different to how you would challenge a law within a legal system with which you disagree.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

So, if in future any regime introduced 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 you would not have a moment's pause or any words of criticism?

 

Don't UKIP want to make any changes at all to the legal system then? Would they be wrong to do so?

 

This time, try to actually answer all of the questions put to you please.

No- let's just focus on the thread's topic. If you wish, start a new thread and pose your question there.

[mikem8634]

No, it would be random state murder. Just the same as if a state created a "tax" which involved state agents robbing random people at gunpoint it would be random robber by the state and not a tax. If a system moves beyond setting laws and punishing those who break them it ceases to be a legal system. So is outside of the debate. As I stated earlier the only country on earth which has such a system is NK and it cannot be described as a legal system, merely state sanctioned murder. The difference is important as how a reasonable person challenges such a system is completely different to how you would challenge a law within a legal system with which you disagree.

 

By whose authority does it cease to be a legal system?

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2013 at 22:16 ----------

 

No- let's just focus on the thread's topic. If you wish, start a new thread and pose your question there.

 

The death penalty for drug smuggling is the thread's topic and one you have been happy to pontificate upon until now.

[ghost rider]

She deserve's everything she is going to get.Drugs are the scourge of the world even though some of our society seem to think it is quite acceptable.You are doing something wrong with your life if you have to resort to taking drugs to enjoy life.I will not shed any tears.

[andygardener]

By whose authority does it cease to be a legal system?

 

What do you mean by whose authority? What a bizarre question.

 

A legal system sets out things that cannot be done and must be done and punishes those who are found to have transgressed in accordance with penalties laid out for different transgressions. If it fails to do those two things it's no longer a legal system. You seem to be under the misaprehension that anyone who claims power can do whatever they want and call it a legal system and thus lawful. That is not the case. See under the many people processed by the Hague and with outstanding IAW's for them.

[mikem8634]

What do you mean by whose authority? What a bizarre question.

 

A legal system sets out things that cannot be done and must be done and punishes those who are found to have transgressed in accordance with penalties laid out for different transgressions. If it fails to do those two things it's no longer a legal system. You seem to be under the misaprehension that anyone who claims power can do whatever they want and call it a legal system and thus lawful. That is not the case. See under the many people processed by the Hague and with outstanding IAW's for them.

 

So you are suggesting that international law would render the legal system of a rogue nation unlawful? All well and good but Jeffrey doesn't believe there is any such thing as International Law as he has previously stated so it does not apply to the hypothetical scenario I presented for his consideration.

 

Furthermore, there are plenty of legally applied sanctions that are barbaric and yet not halted by the intervention of international law.

 

Dare I suggest that you are applying your own morality (as you have already used the term right-thinking) to the hypothetical scenario I presented and that your morality is deeming it unacceptable and beyond what would be condoned by right-thinking international consensus? And by doing so, that you are actually proving my point that it is flawed to suggest that drug smugglers should be subject to whatever punishment any state deems fit and that any punishment is acceptable so long as it is called a law.