[Layke1123]

Forcing consequences on a person is absolutely imposing your values and beliefs onto said person. All it a consequence a you want, at the end of they day you are removing their ability to choose murder.

As for your One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest comment, next I expect you to tell me Whote Walkers are headed my way because narrative episodes are so indicative of what happens in the real world. /s

[pdonis]

> at the end of they day you are removing their ability to choose murder.

No, I'm not, because the consequence only gets imposed after they have made that choice. Removing their ability to choose murder would mean changing them beforehand so they don't choose to murder in the first place. Which, if it can be done while respecting their right to freedom of choice, would of course be vastly preferable.

[Layke1123]

You can't respect someone's freedom to murder without approving of said murder. You actually do not believe what you are saying or are being intentionally obtuse.

If you could prevent the unlawful murder of someone, you don't give a damn about their choice. You are making the choice for them by saying it is not allowed. Your implementation of that forced choice is currently handled by the law. In the future, it might be before they are even able to generate a murderous impulse.

[pdonis]

> You can't respect someone's freedom to murder without approving of said murder.

Sorry, but I disagree.

> You actually do not believe what you are saying or are being intentionally obtuse.

No, I just have a viewpoint that you apparently can't understand.

> Your implementation of that forced choice is currently handled by the law.

This is obvious nonsense since having a law against murder does not prevent someone from committing a murder. It just imposes a punishment on them afterwards.

> In the future, it might be before they are even able to generate a murderous impulse.

Which is very, very different from the current scheme of law we have now. And, as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, to me looks like tyranny worse than the worst tyrannies in history.

[Layke1123]

So you think it is value added to society for a person to be able to murder someone?

I understand it fine. It's objectively wrong.

Imposing a punishment is PRIMARILY a preventative action. The threat of being thrown in jail or even executed is not to retroactively deal with the situation, but to give people an incentive to not murder. If it didn't discourage murder, then people would find a different way to dissuade people from murdering.

How is it tyranny to curb a person's ability to murder? Or you trying to argue that allowing people to murder others is a net gain for society?

[pdonis]

> So you think it is value added to society for a person to be able to murder someone?

I have never claimed any such thing.

> Imposing a punishment is PRIMARILY a preventative action.

Punishing murderer A can certainly deter potential murderer B. But punishing murderer A obviously can't change the fact that murderer A committed a murder. And it might not deter potential murderer C, who either thinks they can escape punishment or has what they think is such a good reason to murder that they don't care about the punishment. So if your goal is to prevent all murders, punishment doesn't achieve that goal.

If your goal is simply to decrease the number of murders, then punishment can do that, yes. But you seem to be taking the position that just decreasing the number is not enough; that only preventing all murders is acceptable.

> How is it tyranny to curb a person's ability to murder?

It's not tyranny to put a murderer on trial and imprison them if they are found guilty. (This assumes that the trial is fair, which in our society is often not the case. But I don't want to go off on another tangent.)

It is tyranny to force a person who has not murdered anyone to go through some kind of brain surgery which is claimed to remove their propensity to murder. Which is what you appear to be proposing.

[Layke1123]

Then if you could change a person and make them incapable of murder, would you not do it? If you could prevent murder, why aren't you morally compelled to? If you chose to let it happen, that means you approve of it.

My position is that reducing murder as much as you can is the correct position, to include making that number zero, just like stopping all rape is better than just reducing the number of rapes.

Is it OK for a parent to have their child circumcised? Or have their ears pierced? If thats OK, I don't see why removing your ability to murder someone is seen as so drastic. Would you not elect to have your ability to murder removed?