Something my psych professor brought up today that I think is worth discussing...

Here are 3 stands that most people associate with...you MUST pick one of each, you cannot say "it depends on the circumstance":

Pro-Death Penalty or Anti-Death Penalty
Pro-War or Anti-War
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice


Once I get a few answers, I'll come back with the "moral dilemma"

I do see where this is going but I will go along. For me:

Anti-death penalty
Anti-war
Pro-choice




Cat

Pro-Death Penalty
Pro-War
Pro-Life

let me guess, a stance like this:

Pro-Death Penalty
Pro-War
Pro-Life

shows that you have no problems with killing, as long as it's not a fetus

and a stance like this:

Anti-death penalty
Anti-war
Pro-choice

says you have a problem with killing unless it is a fetus

let me guess, a stance like this:

Pro-Death Penalty
Pro-War
Pro-Life

shows that you have no problems with killing, as long as it's not a fetus

and a stance like this:

Anti-death penalty
Anti-war
Pro-choice

says you have a problem with killing unless it is a fetus


If that is the case what if you are:

Anti-Death Penalty
Anti-War
Pro-Life

or..

Pro-Death Penalty
Pro-War
Pro-Choice

Pro-Death Penalty (some folks will NEVER belong in society)
Pro-War (there are times when you have to defend your rights)
Pro-Choice (I don't agree with abortion, but I believe there are certain cicumstances where you should be able to make your own choice)

Although I believe all 3 should depend on the circumstance at hand.

Pro-Death Penalty
Anti-War
Pro-Life

Pro-Death Penalty (some folks will NEVER belong in society)
Pro-War (there are times when you have to defend your rights)
Pro-Choice (I don't agree with abortion, but I believe there are certain cicumstances where you should be able to make your own choice)

Although I believe all 3 should depend on the circumstance at hand.


That's my stance as well.

Plus -

As far as the pro-death thing goes, tax payers have to pay for these inhuman scum of the earth to live-out life sentences without parole and the thought of that annoys me to no end.

Sorry, I can't pick one of each...

Anti death penalty (at least until we can guarantee we get the right person - the record on both sides of the Atlantic is not good in this)
Anti-war (unless it's absolutely necessary)
Pro-choice

Anti-war (unless it's absolutely necessary)



Well, wouldn't that be technically considered Pro-war?

I mean, that's the same way a couple of us feel so far and we called it as such.

Pro-Choice (meaning whatever the woman decides, it's HER business, not mine)
Pro-Death Penalty
Anti-War

Tanya

Pro-choice
Anti-death penalty
Anti-war

I'm not pro-abortion.  I am in favor of personal responsibility in sexual activity.  Always use contraception, and if you don't have contraception, it is your responsibility to abstain.  Guys, if you're messing around and a woman tells you she's on the pill, don't take her word for it.  Use a condom.  I don't care if you don't like 'em.  Never rely on biological chance.
That said, if there is an unwanted pregnancy, I will tolerate no state mandating a woman must carry to term.  No moralist vicar or Bible-thumping holy roller is going to tell me otherwise.  So, anti-choicers, bleat away about "the fetus, the fetus," to me it falls on deaf ears.  Furthermore, it infuriates me how little right-wingers care for the needs of the born.

The death penalty is a regressive and barbaric statute, and I'm embarrassed to live in a country that allows it.  America keeps great company with China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia on this one.  If you have capitol punishment, you are going to end up putting innocent people to death.  Even DNA testing doesn't guarantee an innocent person will not be sentenced to execution.  Many more on death row are guilty of crimes, perhaps even homicide, but if they got a fair trial, they would prove not to qualify for the death penalty.  As long as states like Texas appoint drunken insurance lawyers to defend indigent clients, the death penalty will always be disproportionately conferred upon the poor.

What kind of sicko is really "pro-war"?  General Sherman was right, "war is hell!"  I'm not a pacifist, but I am anti-war unless it is the last resort.  On the same subject, I am pro-national defense but anti-militarism.  National defense means you protect the people, borders, infrastructure, and sovereignty of your country.  Militarism is a means by which one country controls the people, borders, infrastructure, and sovereignty of another.
World War II was about national defense.  The Gulf Wars were about militarism.  When the U.S. Congress approves yet another bloated Pentagon budget, it is spending money largely on militarism rather than national defense.  Militarism is the modus operandi of  empire.  It is always extremely expensive and drains the resources of the homeland.  It beggars the average citizen to increase the riches of the wealthy.  U.S. militarism centers around the military-petroleum complex.  We went to Iraq to control their oil.  We went to Kosovo to establish a giant military presence capable of controlling the oil-rich Caspian Sea region.

Maxwell said:
"I am anti-war unless it is the last resort."

As am I,  but because of the way the exercise is set up, it is in the word "unless" that my selection of the "Pro war" stance was dictated.  For the purposes of this exercise,  anti-war, anti-death penalty and pro-life would mean unwavering opposition to war, death penalty and abortion in EVERY circumstance, with NO exceptions.   

That's my stance as well.

Plus -

As far as the pro-death thing goes, tax payers have to pay for these inhuman scum of the earth to live-out life sentences without parole and the thought of that annoys me to no end.


As Von Clauswits said, "war is the logical extension of diplomacy" so...

pro-war (just not this one, or Vietnam for that matter, war should always be the last resort, not the first choice).

pro-choice (keep your laws out of our bodies)

anti-death penalty (it is barbaric, and, Spray, my Criminal Justice colleagues tell me it usually costs more to put a person to death than to keep him/her in jail for life.  I found it hard  to believe, but she had stats).

anti-death penalty (it is barbaric, and, Spray, my Criminal Justice colleagues tell me it usually costs more to put a person to death than to keep him/her in jail for life.  I found it hard  to believe, but she had stats).


I wouldn't be surprised if that was because we wait to long to use the death penalty.  22 years on death row for this one guy I saw on A&E!?  That may factor into it.  Texas (as I have stated before,) has a new state law that says if you commit a murder, and 3 credible people see you commiting the murder and testify, you are put to death in 90 days...no appeals.  I think Texas has the right idea on this one.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was because we wait to long to use the death penalty.  22 years on death row for this one guy I saw on A&E!?  That may factor into it.  Texas (as I have stated before,) has a new state law that says if you commit a murder, and 3 credible people see you commiting the murder and testify, you are put to death in 90 days...no appeals.  I think Texas has the right idea on this one.


Three credibible witnesses?  There is no such thing as a "credible witness", as every law school in the country teachers.  Witesses see what they expect to see.  I could describe an excersise cunducted at most law schools designed to make that point, but it would take to long.

So I will just point out that the Repub Gov. of Ill (I forget his name) stopped all executions because there were just too many doubts about the guilt of those condemned.  Or do you think it is ok to execute an innocent now and then?

Well, wouldn't that be technically considered Pro-war?

I mean, that's the same way a couple of us feel so far and we called it as such.

To apply such a definition is invidious: calling someone "pro-war" when that is a shorthand for saying "never, EVER, go to war unless all other possible avenues have been exhausted"... one step off being a pacifist; then being included in the same categorization as the sort of person who things the invasion of Iraq was "the right thing to do"? As hypotheticals go, it's an annoying categorization.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was because we wait to long to use the death penalty.  22 years on death row for this one guy I saw on A&E!?  That may factor into it.

It's very difficult to believe life in prison costs less than execution but if that is indeed the case (too worn out to care enough to research), then the statement above makes some sense. By the way, I don't agree with having the scum in death row sucking society’s resources for those excessively long periods of time. I'll never understand why that is.

It's very difficult to believe life in prison costs less than execution but if that is indeed the case (too worn out to care enough to research), then the statement above makes some sense. By the way, I don't agree with having the scum in death row sucking society’s resources for those excessively long periods of time. I'll never understand why that is.


A study done at Duke University says that it costs $2 million more to execute a prisoner than to incerate him for life.  This is mainly due to all the appeals processes that are in place.  Notes From a Big Country Bill Bryson]

This is mainly due to all the appeals processes that are in place. Notes From a Big Country Bill Bryson]

...'cause you pay lawyers much more than prison guards, I guess...

Maxwell said:
"I am anti-war unless it is the last resort."

As am I,  but because of the way the exercise is set up, it is in the word "unless" that my selection of the "Pro war" stance was dictated.  For the purposes of this exercise,  anti-war, anti-death penalty and pro-life would mean unwavering opposition to war, death penalty and abortion in EVERY circumstance, with NO exceptions.   



Then the exercise is stupid.

A study done at Duke University says that it costs $2 million more to execute a prisoner than to incerate him for life.  This is mainly due to all the appeals processes that are in place.  Notes From a Big Country Bill Bryson]

See, what GWB and his ilk want to do is execute the convicted before they can ever demonstrate innocence
or mitigating circumstances.  Logic dictates the death penalty is irreversible.  However, most people who get the hot shot are people conservatives don't like in the first place, so they don't really mind.

Maxwell said:
"I am anti-war unless it is the last resort."

As am I,  but because of the way the exercise is set up, it is in the word "unless" that my selection of the "Pro war" stance was dictated.  For the purposes of this exercise,  anti-war, anti-death penalty and pro-life would mean unwavering opposition to war, death penalty and abortion in EVERY circumstance, with NO exceptions.   



Then the exercise is stupid.




Question?
How does that make it a stupid excercise?

Question?
How does that make it a stupid excercise?

Because a reasonable person does not have "unwavering opposition" to WAR in ALL circumstances, so it is not a reasonable proposition.

Something my psych professor brought up today that I think is worth discussing...

Here are 3 stands that most people associate with...you MUST pick one of each, you cannot say "it depends on the circumstance":

Pro-Death Penalty or Anti-Death Penalty
Pro-War or Anti-War
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice


Once I get a few answers, I'll come back with the "moral dilemma"



Well, being a Roamin' Catholic, I can tell you that the Pro Life position also includes Anti Death Penalty.

Church teaching provides a bit more "wiggle room" where war is concerned, such as self defense, or taking action that would surely save lives.  I say "wiggle room" because it is one thing to truly follow this ideal, and quite another thing to try and shoehorn whatever war you want to start into it.  ???

But the Church teaching on abortion and death penalty is clear:  "No, under any circumstances"

Because a reasonable person does not have "unwavering opposition" to WAR in ALL circumstances, so it is not a reasonable proposition.


So then, by saying that wouldn't "a reasonable person" be Pro-War? I consider myself to be Pro-War but that doesn't mean I'm ready to send the troops in because somebody ticked me off. I would prefer not to go to war but that doesn't make me anti-war.

By the way, I don't agree with having the scum in death row sucking society’s resources for those excessively long periods of time. I'll never understand why that is.


Philosophically, I agree with you, but experience has shown that, when it comes to capital punishment, those without the capital get the punishment.  There is a decided racial and class bias in how the death penalty is meted out, this beyond the fact that too many innocents are convicted.  DNA testing might alter that down the road, in some cases, but not all.  It just cleared a man convicted of rape and murder, I think, 12 years ago, forgot where.  And what about "Thou shalt not Kill"?  No qualifiers there.

But there is no reason why a convicted killer, or rapist etc, should be allowed to just sit in a cell.  Put them to work.  Make them earn their keep.