Real Talk: What should the world do about terrorism (CIA, etc.)? [Organized OP]

[log]

Also there are no correct morals.

yes there are?

[Ad Bot]

[saevitia]

A government or institution shouldn't have the right to deprive a human being of life. It's morally incorrect and is a violation of the basic human rights.

Then they can force military service. Morals don't come into regards if they are still alive, and are given their chance to repent for their crimes through jingoistic combat. They are not effectively sentenced to death, and are given a chance of freedom.

[PhantOS]

Then they can force military service. Morals don't come into regards if they are still alive, and are given their chance to repent for their crimes through jingoistic combat. They are not effectively sentenced to death, and are given a chance of freedom.

Then they can force military service. Morals don't come into regards if they are still alive, and are given their chance to repent for their crimes through jingoistic combat. They are not effectively sentenced to death, and are given a chance of freedom.

The united states is all volunteer military service now. I don't see why they'd force military service upon convicts, especially since you may be putting other soldiers at risk by allowing serial killers to fight alongside troops.

Technically, morals don't exist as they are simply a concept/construct put in place entirely around human opinion. However, the government can put moral standards in place through the use of laws, and there's no terrible ideology behind it. Simply put, ethical behavior is required to keep a structured society from breaking down into an anarchy

[saevitia]

The united states is all volunteer military service now. I don't see why they'd force military service upon convicts, especially since you may be putting other soldiers at risk by allowing serial killers to fight alongside troops.

Penal battalions have been a common thing in the past. Traditionally, they're put up to the jobs of Self Delete units and are deployed first wave with both intense risk, and a lot of valour to what they do; not what they have done. Are you entirely certain about your counter-claim?

EDIT (rebuttal: PhantOS):

Morals are indeed a concept put in place based on opinion, but it also holds a root within psychology. It helps that you're correct on a lack of ideology based upon morals; however we can easily counter your argument by noting that if the government may put them into place; they exist. Ethical behaviour hasn't been proven necessary to maintain a society; however it is a helpful matter to avoid certain outcomes. Despite it being helpful, as you have said, the government may overwrite the concept of morals and ethics with their own statements. This was done in World War II by Adolf Riddler and the NSDAP.

[Rally]

Penal battalions have been a common thing in the past. Traditionally, they're put up to the jobs of Self Delete units and are deployed first wave with both intense risk, and a lot of valour to what they do; not what they have done. Are you entirely certain about your counter-claim?

Have penal military units ever been used past the 1950's? I can't imagine putting military weapons in the hands of convicted murderers and sending them to conflict regions on peacekeeping and relief ops is going to wonders for the USA's foreign rep lol. We're not at (global) war, we don't need conscription.

[saevitia]

Have penal military units ever been used past the 1950's? I can't imagine putting military weapons in the hands of convicted murderers and sending them to conflict regions on peacekeeping and relief ops is going to wonders for the USA's foreign rep lol. We're not at (global) war, we don't need conscription.

It varies on the situations. The United States has recently focused less on peacekeeping and relief operations - conflicts still rise with groups such as CIA or the North Koreans, which may make it inevitable. It's mindfully agreed that it was not the most popular tactic, however it offered those wrongly accused a way out. Something to keep in mind is that my argument does support the Death Row, which insinuates that those whom ARE incredibly dangerous are already filtered toward their execution.

[water pipe]

Take a life, give a life.

[PhantOS]

Take a life, give a life.

In the end you're left with two humans who have been deprived of their life, which you think is somehow better than one dead human.

[Niff]

nvm

[water pipe]

In the end you're left with two humans who have been deprived of their life, which you think is somehow better than one dead human.

What about the cost to keep them alive, and the fact that the victim's family may feel as though the murder was never justified? The death penalty may be offputting as well.

[PhantOS]

Everyone seem to underestimate how sacred a human's life is. People sacrifice so much for their child, so much hardship, struggle, victory, demise. We are all sinners on the inside, and we've all broken some rule or hurt someone, physically or mentally. We all make mistakes and in the end the judgement should come from divine powers, not fellow humans. If one decides to murder their neighbor, they should be justly punished and live out the rest of their life in prison, not given an early end to their precious life.

True, the victim lost their precious life as well, but what good comes out of more death?

What about the cost to keep them alive, and the fact that the victim's family may feel as though the murder was never justified?

And somehow putting money and revenge above a human's life is the right course of action? People aren't liabilities, they're living organisms that deserve a chance at life.

[Tayasaurus]

What about the cost to keep them alive

kind of stuffty that we're so capable to put a price on life

Everyone seem to underestimate how sacred a human's life is. People sacrifice so much for their child, so much hardship, struggle, victory, demise. We are all sinners on the inside, and we've all broken some rule or hurt someone, physically or mentally. We all make mistakes and in the end the judgement should come from divine powers, not fellow humans. If one decides to murder their neighbor, they should be justly punished and live out the rest of their life in prison, not given an early end to their precious life.

True, the victim lost their precious life as well, but what good comes out of more death?And somehow putting money and revenge above a human's life is the right course of action? People aren't liabilities, they're living organisms that deserve a chance at life.

I get what you mean but be careful, people here would love to try and turn this into a religious argument

[PhantOS]

I get what you mean but be careful, people here would love to try and turn this into a religious argument

nvm i contradicted myself, i understand what you're saying

Divinity aside, the entire world (all countries part of the UN) follow the universal declaration of human rights, so technically depriving a defenseless human being of life is a crime against humanity.

[Tayasaurus]

Sin isn't a religion-specific quality. I'm just saying we've all done something we know on the inside is immoral.

I know that. Just don't leave any opportunity for it to get that way.

Back on topic: It's too bad we don't have anymore landmasses to dump convicts on unless Australia is still taking applications 

[Frequency]

the death penalty is inefficient and a waste of resources

prisoners should be hooked up to machines that make use of their brain's processing power and/or their body's ability to generate energy (like a hamster in a wheel)