FfaerieOxide

see I don’t respect the BBC.

You shouldn’t.

what makes that cutoff meaningful?

Fetuses don’t have rights.

I’m also saying you can’t sieze all their assets. money isn’t just money, and its not the only thing that’s money.

What the heck are you talking about? Find the things which can be exchanged for goods and services and that those things away. Cart off shiny rocks. 0 out electronic ledgers

Billionaire handshakes are meaningless. If you’ve seized all the food and means of production what does it matter if gardeners try to play Parker Bros. with one another?

being human
which is what?

A supernatural comedy drama on BBC3

why?

What are you, a toddler? You asked for a cutoff and I gave you one. If you didn’t want an answer, don’t ask.

okay so when I die where does that dignity go? my writings? my body, my soul?
because your version of this idea sounds anawful lot like a soul.

What’s your point? I never mentioned “a soul” as it relates to human dignity but if even you seem to be using it as equivalent to or allegory for writings so what if it does sound like that?

Like you seem to be trying to sculpt my position to some preconceived notion you have of organized faith so you can then attack that when I have never mentioned religion.

I just said you shouldn’t murder people once you’ve already seized “their” assets.

based on what?

Being Human

at what point(s) does it start applying?

First breath; fetuses aren’t people

at what point(s) does it stop?

It doesn’t.

what about a hypothetical uploaded mind?

Getting a bit off topic your advocacy of murdering people after their wealth has been seized

in an ideal world, maybe we should.

Why the hell advocate violence if not to effect ideals?

You good, mate? Do you need a friend or someone to talk to?

money isn’t money though.

Pretty sure money is money, and you can take it.

in what ways?

It makes you the type of person who can dismiss the humanity of other humans as “other” and we know what kind of atrocities that leads to.

half as many people arguing half as much for the dignity and humanity of the unhoused and laboring classes

What about universal human dignity applying universally takes away the right of dignity from the unhoused?

Human dignity isn’t a zero-sum game. That’s billionaire thinking.

Take billionaires’ assets, not their lives (post-fact).

“DEBBBBAAAATE MEEEEEEE!”

and being wealthy diminishes just about all of those reasons.scientifically, there are studies that prove it. the wealthy are less intelligent less logic less compassionate less connected to the world.

So take their money.

they dehumanize, in the terms that matter to me, themselves.

You dehumanize yourself when you dehumanize others.

I’m in favor of actually fixing the problem. that means a guillotine.

How did that work out for Robespierre?

it takes seconds, other way takes years,

And you end up with dirty sheets. No matter how fast it is it doesn’t address your problem.

Don’t call people “it” my dude.
Irrespective how monstrous a person acts they’re still a human and you can’t distance yourself and your capacity to engage in the same monsterousness they did by dehumanizing them.

These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power.

So take their money too.

It’s easier to put bullets in things than to do alot of things, what’s your point?

It’s easier to shoot someone than to change your sheets but it doesn’t make your bed smell less of piss.

Steven-Chowder-at-a-card-table over here.

I’m not gonna “debate me!” somebody who think murder is cool and good; it isn’t.

“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG”

I don’t decide. The state murdering people is wrong. I just have the moral wherewithal to recognize the fact.

Which isn’t hard because it’s objectively true.

Hope this helps.

you don’t keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.

Once you take the money they aren’t billionaires anymore.

There is no objective right or wrong here.

No, the state killing people is objectively wrong.

persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them.

You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.

I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle

You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.

Alright. I DON’T agree.

You should; death as a post-hoc punishment is abhorrent and serves no one.

Take the money, sure. Then they’re no longer billionaires and there’s no need to kill them.

While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.

Then you don’t agree.

I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.

No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.

I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.

The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you’ve stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.

Taking the piss is the sincerest form of flattery.