Dawkins

[DonkSlayer 1]

I didn't read "The God Delusion" but I was at least willing to accept that he made good points for those who choose not support any religion.Then I read this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...-opinion-centerA completely unscientific "scientific" justification for not executing Saddam.• Nevermind that he got right to the point early in the article that said he finds executions barbaric and inhuman (oh, that won't bias any scientific opinion on that matter)• Nevermind that we didn't execute Saddam, the Iraqis did• Nevermind that if we could actually learn something from the examination he proposes, we would've done it on countless other true psychopaths• "Crazy" is a qualitative term, and Saddam was a shrewd tyrant, not a Manson• Nevermind that even IF we could've learned something from studying his alive body, we couldn't go back in time to study his physique when he gassed the Kurds, etc. Nevermind all of it, Dawkins has decreed Saddam should've lived.

[SilentSnow 1]

I just want you to know that God stepped in and saved you.I had just finished writing a long rant post about how this is one of the worst arguments I have seen in quite a long time, when out of the blue a random popup appeared and crashed my browser. I pretty much never get popups.So, I decided to surrender to the will of God and not rewrite the whole thing.Still, someone needs to point out that this is a childish and poorly constructed argument.

[BWToth 0]

This is a horredously childish and poorly constucted argument.At the very least, what justification can YOU give that is of greater merit FOR executing Saddam than the ones presented against his execution?All you got now is that:(1 We didn't allow other psychopaths to live, therefore we shouldn't allow saddam to live X(2 Saddam wasn't psychotic, merely a shewd tryant, therefore making any information gleaned from psycho-analysis less important than his execution today X(3 It is impossible to determine is mindset at a point 25 years ago, therefore his mindset today is irrelevant XX X X STRIKE 3...You're out.

[DonkSlayer 1]

As you two are often so fond of pointing out, I don't have to justify his execution in order to critique his essay. Y'all are more than welcome to try to justify it.Are we playing baseball, BWtoth?

[DonkSlayer 1]

All you got now is that:(1 We didn't allow other psychopaths to live, therefore we shouldn't allow saddam to live X(2 Saddam wasn't psychotic, merely a shewd tryant, therefore making any information gleaned from psycho-analysis less important than his execution today X(3 It is impossible to determine is mindset at a point 25 years ago, therefore his mindset today is irrelevant XX X X STRIKE 3...You're out.

1. I didn't make this argument. I made the argument that if the scientific community really believed there to be a benefit, it would've been done already. How do you get "we didnt' allow other psycopaths to live?" Do you have a quote?2. I didn't make this argument, Dawkins did. He clearly stated that he believed Saddam was "crazy." Therefore, if you do not agree with his qualitative label, he loses you in the debate.3. I did not make this argument either. Logically, you can only review the current state of a "crazy"...so how do you know that the hormones/chemicals/whatever were in the same balance and amount the day you review them as they were 25 years ago during a particular event?I believe that was a "shut-out" per say.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Dawkins' Argument: It would have been better to have tried to learn something from Saddam than for sure learning nothing by executing him.I agree. Wasn't he in fact in the middle of a separate trial when he was executed? And it's not like getting rid of him created peace in Iraq or the Middle East (quite the opposite, it turns out).

[DonkSlayer 1]

Dawkins' Argument: It would have been better to have tried to learn something from Saddam than for sure learning nothing by executing him.I agree. Wasn't he in fact in the middle of a separate trial when he was executed? And it's not like getting rid of him created peace in Iraq or the Middle East (quite the opposite, it turns out).

That was his red herring.

[Loismustdie 0]

Dawkins' Argument: It would have been better to have tried to learn something from Saddam than for sure learning nothing by executing him.I agree. Wasn't he in fact in the middle of a separate trial when he was executed? And it's not like getting rid of him created peace in Iraq or the Middle East (quite the opposite, it turns out).

I agree with Dawkins on this one. Nothing was gained.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I don't support the death penalty, FWIW. I think it's an easy way out, like suicide. We don't have to mess with ethical issues then either.I think I tire of this forum...maybe I'll come back later, but I wanna be friends and talk poker, not get mad over the dinner table talking about religion and politics. This OP was probably done to stir it up, and regardless of whether my points are right or wrong, I'm not trying to start a bunch of crap just to do it. My bad.

[BWToth 0]

Why not discuss and debate two differing opinoins about a subject, whether you come out agreeing in the end or not it's still one of the best ways to learn, and see things from different angles, as well as solidify your belief that your own viewpoint is the right one.I don't understand why you 'get mad' when talking religion and politics, i've never understood why many people always say 'lets just not argue about it' 'let's agree to disagree'. If you believe something to be true and have a solid foundation for believing it then I is almost your responsibility to defend that viewpoint. That may sound cheezy, but it is one best ways to learn/grow.I'm curious about your first sentence by the way. When you say that the death penalty is an easy way out, what are you implying? That instead of letting murders be killed in supposedly humane ways that we should submit them to some strange forms of torture as retribution? Also, you're saying you don't believe in the death penalty, but you also disagree with Dawkins that Saddam should NOT have been executed? That's a bit contradictory. If you don't think he should have been killed, but you don't think he should have lived and been psycho-analyzed, what DO you believe?

[TenaciousMe 0]

I agree with Dawkins on this one. Nothing was gained.

I actually applauded at the CNN video. Pleasure was gained.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I don't understand why you 'get mad' when talking religion and politics

Very often it gets insulting and vindictive, and causes me to react the same way, which I don't like.

When you say that the death penalty is an easy way out, what are you implying? That instead of letting murders be killed in supposedly humane ways that we should submit them to some strange forms of torture as retribution? Also, you're saying you don't believe in the death penalty, but you also disagree with Dawkins that Saddam should NOT have been executed? That's a bit contradictory. If you don't think he should have been killed, but you don't think he should have lived and been psycho-analyzed, what DO you believe?

People should be remanded for breaking laws..otherwise societies don't work. I don't think that we have a natural right to kill unless our lives are in danger. I have some faith issues too, but the natural right thing should be sufficient in justifying my position. Our system is messed up in that it takes forever for someone on death row to be executed, so there's defintely some punishment before death there..but quick execution is just "ok, not our problem anymore, and not yours either." A potential murderer could think a little like a fighter pilot saying "well, if I DO die, chances are it'll be real quick..." It's not fixing the problem by any means.Just because I don't think we have the right to kill someone as retribution doesn't mean I think for a second that Dawkins really believes what he wrote, about some sort of psycho-analysis whooey. That was the point of the OP...his article was hooey, trying to come up with some sort of science to justify an anti-death penalty decision. Kind of like the LA times does every time a big name is about to be executed...there's always some "legal" reason why not to kill them too.I don't think torture when I say "no death." I think a lifetime in prison is certainly torturous, though....the punishment should fit the crime so that the punishment is a true deterrent. FWIW, I think a lot of hard labor and some other unpleasant experiences could certainly be more often used as a substitute to "6 mos in jail", "8 centuries of probation", or the like. I'll not be back on till tomorrow morning, in case a lot of responses come.

[TenaciousMe 0]

I'm not a big fan of Dawkins, but he has a point, but truly it's not his place to go to the media with his opinion, so he should shut up.Dawkins is on my top 10 list of media whores, including awesome people such as: Puff Daddy, Paris HiltonBahaha

[crowTrobot 2]

I'm not a big fan of Dawkins, but he has a point, but truly it's not his place to go to the media with his opinion, so he should shut up.

why is it not his place?