Relatively ancient and inactive
I think you underestimate how fucked up some peoples lives are.
Some people will do it anyway.
Some won't. Those that won't are those that drive lower crime rates.
It does not make you a heretic, and it was certainly written by men. Of course one of the issues with implementing some sort of torture/deterrent punishment scheme is what kind of government you implement and what sort of moral code it espouses. For someone like you it's an obvious solution, but for someone like me, who clearly has a different set of values, the government and morality necessary creates a conflict that is irreconcilable with this deterrant method of punishment that you suggest, so its not an option really.
Yeah. You consider it immoral. Dammit, all my brilliant ideas are immoral.
Actually when it comes to morality, the one who gains the majority becomes right and the minority, wrong. That is just as relevent as your argument seems to disregard morality. And in this world, people uphold and value morality as a set of code to dictate our actions before our gains.
Also, there is nothing wrong with your arguments. I am not arguing about whats more efficient. I am asserting that your arguments are disregarding morality, and you've even agreed yourself.
Not necessarily. In Russia, for example, many people, possibly a majority, would be for capital punishment for very corrupt government officials, because everyone knows its such a crippling problem, draining billions and billions. Does this suddenly make capital punishment moral? Do morals change with location? Sometimes your abstract 'morals' have to be sacrificed for a better lifestyle for more people. I would call that a very... 'moral' choice.
Actually, theres nothing that prevents you from killing an intruder w/ a weapon- although I would probably do what the criminal says because in your case, the criminal would most likely have a gun. What the law prevents you from are things like shooting someone several times over even after they were dead- or such things as manslaughter.
Also, wouldn't it be kinda hilarious if I were wielding a sword, and the criminal a knife, and the criminal told you to back up against the wall even if you had a bigger, better weapon?
Moose's quote from Wikipedia shows that unless you had good reason to think that your life was in danger, you aren't allowed to kill the attacker.
Also, you're labeling Republicans as idiots and not caring about the world- why and for what reason? Do you have proof? Does being selfish make someone an 'idiot'? Sure it makes them selfish, but selfish -> idiotic, I think you're getting emotional.
And Centreri, would you care to explain how torture is an ineffective method? I think there was no such mention of such facts. Albeit torture is a psychological method of getting 'satisfactory' answers, not the truth. That leaves a lot of room for abuse.
My athiesm leaves me with contempt for those who use religion to attract voters or to forge government policy. My contempt for the Republican party stems from my contempt for the whole polarized two-party system coupled with my contempt for a broad range of their policies, from international relations to abortion to their commitment to an unregulated economy which favors the very rich (selfish). The other broad category of republicans, aside from the rich, are those who are drawn to the party because of religious beliefs; because I have strong feelings on the matter, I believe it justified if I call this particular group 'idiots'.
As for torture, here, from the wikipedia article:' National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical.[3] Despite these international conventions, however, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International) that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.'. Not inefficient, but impractical, actually.
None.