The_Terrible_Humbaba

Yeah, I hate being kinked limited. Like, just let me experience things, ya know?

But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.

Well, what's "some amount of wealth"? We all have some amount of it. At what point is it okay to take someone's life because of it? I don't think that's very different from saying "I think we should use capital punishment on murderers". One of the reasons I oppose capital punishment is also because government convict innocent people; but another is that I think people can be rehabilitated, and I believe that both for murderers and people with wealth.

It's not called a false dichotomy; it's called taking a firm stance, and speaking the language properly and clearly.

Pro-lifers think abortion is bad at any point; pro-~~lifers~~ choicers are people who think abortion is okay to a certain point. People who are pro capital punishment only want it in certain scenarios; people who are anti capital punishment don't want it at all.

If you say you are "pro capital punishment in certain scenarios", then you support the death sentence; end of. Saying you're "anti but (...)" is like saying "I'm anti-abortion/pro-life except for the first 3 months or in special circumstances".

That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that.

Then don't claim to be anti this or that when you're not? I was quite specific in that I was talking to people who say they are "anti" when they are not.

Any Communist knows that this future is not possible until money is no longer a necessity.

We make money a necessity, and so no, "any communist" doesn't know that because it isn't true. You clearly have a very limited and ignorant view of communism and communists. The person I quoted was an anarchist-communist, and I feel like "any communist" should know that.

That being said, they’re giving her a choice, pay back $9 billion or die. Pretty simple. She has an opportunity to not die.

Unless I'm missing something: they are the state, they can just seize her assets and put her in prison, there's no reason for killing.

Pro-rehabilitation folks still can believe that not all people can be rehabilitated.

If we were talking hypotheticals I might agree, but like you said this is the real world and a question remains: who decides who is incapable of rehabilitation? People who have committed murder (which I personally would classify as the worst type of crime - taking away someone's entire life) have been rehabilitated before, and completely changed their lives and become productive members of society. Plus, the same goal could be achieved with permanent incarceration, and at least then they have a chance of being released if we ever find there was a miscarriage of justice.

Some crimes and criminals are beyond what the sane and just can fathom.

But who gets to decide who that? Who are the "sane and just" who will draw the line? In Texas, USA, the "sane and just" decided you should get the death penalty if you murder a "peace officer". And off course by "peace officer" we know they mean the type of people who kill children and people's dogs; but if anyone were to kill one in self-defence a court would probably still convict them of murder.

This thread in a nutshell:

I'm against the death penalty, but/except/unless...

Well, then you're not against it, are you? People who are pro death penalty also have their limits from which point forward they believe death penalty to be justifiable. If you have an exception, you are pro-death penalty.

And to all the "revolutionaries" in these comments:

My Disillusionment in Russia, by Emma Goldman (Afterword):

There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another. (...) All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical. (...) Psychologically and socially the means necessarily influence and alter the aims. (...)

No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSES to be achieved. (...) It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society. It is not a mere reformer, patching up some social evils; not a mere changer of forms and institutions; not only a re-distributor of social well-being. It is all that, yet more, much more. (...)

To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone.

If you are a leftist that imagines/wishes a future with no government oppression, sponsored killing, and violence; and if you claim to be pro rehabilitation instead of punishment, you should not be celebrating capital punishment.

You're right, it is a false dichotomy on your part. There's a difference between an active threat and someone who has been arrested. We are talking about sentencing someone who is on trial, not about active self-defence. Or would you shoot someone as they are running away from you, just because they attacked you earlier?

Do you think the people who are pro death penalty want to kill people for every minor crime? Because they also just want to condemn to death the people who they believe to be morally righteous to do that to.

It's a classic.

I'm against the death penalty, but...

There are no buts; if there's a "but" then you're pro capital punishment.

a dictionary’s job is to catalgue woros as they are used.

Sure, because language is a living thing that evolves over times, but I still don't like how this is thrown around any time a word is misused. This is also one of the problems that might have reached or be reaching a tipping point with communication becoming so fast and widespread with the internet.

At the end of the day, the point of language is to communicate concepts and ideas to other people, but the faster words change the more often you have miscommunication; and also the harder it becomes to talk about certain topics or communicate concepts because the word used to define it changes, like in this case.

To give another example: the word "libertarian" was originally associated with socialism but was co-opted by capitalists, so now if you say you are libertarian most people will assume you mean libertarian capitalist; because of this a lot of people began using the world "anarchist" instead, but that has also shifted to be synonymous with "chaos". This means it is a lot harder to talk about these ideas and concepts because the words used to describe them have been given completely different meanings.

And speaking of language, I want to share this article by Orwell that perhaps not many have seen.:

Excerpt:

It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

I'll reply all in one comment:

make any excuse you want

Sorry you failed math, I guess?

all the evidence is to the contrary

production determines availability. there is no reason to assume we could produce more meat than we do, given land and technology constraints.

meat production happened before trade. there is no reason to assume it will ever end.

Where do you think meat is going? Why do you think it was being produced before trade, for fun? And do you not understand the basic concept that less =/= more, and that less emissions is better than more emissions?

It's really not a hard concept to grasp, but go ahead and keep trying to hide your head in the sand and justify your consumerism while pretending to give a shit. I won't bother wasting my time on someone who apparently can't grasp basic math.

In 2021 Americans ate about 37.81kg of beef per capita per year in 2021, that's about 0.73kg per week, or 1.6lbs.

Cheapest beef in Walmart that I can find, 1 pound for $5.93; so, for 1.6lbs, it comes out to $9.49 per week, for the cheapest Walmart beef. Keep in mind, 1.6lbs = 25.6 oz.

Beans (didn't go for the cheapest): Can of black beans (15oz) for $1.42, another can of butter beans(16oz) for $1.54.

Lentils (not the cheapest): Iberia Lentils 12 oz for $2.59.

Mushrooms (16oz) for $4.34.

So a total of $9.89 for varied and healthy food, vs $9.49 for Walmart's cheapest beef (which realistically would cost $11.86, because you can't just buy 0.6lbs of that beef).

Yeah, because there's more people in total. That doesn't mean people going vegan doesn't stop the growth of the meat industry.

Say 50% of people eat meat, and the other 50% are vegan. Then say the world population doubles. Now there will twice as many vegans, but there will also be twice as many meat eaters, and so meat production will double. But there's still only half the meat production that there would be if 100% of people ate meat. And if you could get that value to 0% percent, there would be no meat industry.