@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar Vast majority of murders throughout history have been over inter-familial conflict (analogous to modern gang warfare) or intra-familial conflict. Also, like, scarcity.
The paper itself notes the rise of state-sponsored conflict resolution, but then jumps to silly conclusions.
@SouthernWintrs@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@Liv_Agar Murderers who were eligible for the death penalty are rarely let out of prison and almost never re-offend (outside of prison; the unnecessary dangers inside of prisons are a whole other discussion.)
@HR_MENCKEN@misschikadee@Liv_Agar The argument you provided made no distinction between forms of violence, while suggesting the state had unlimited license to enact it.
I was addressing the argument you wrote; if you meant something else, you should have written that.
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar I do have a strong belief in your tendency for magical thinking, but I actually didn't continue to make that claim of your argument, no. My side comment was a joke poking fun at you for failing to state your case.
Speaking of, gimme your yea or nay on eugenics, to cover our bases
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar I actually missed the link, yes.
Paper isn't persuasive to me. State capacity broadly fits the pattern just as well as capital punishment.
Better when you account for there being no rebound in murder rates with the softening of capital punishment.
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar Here's the illiteracy again. I never said you were dishonest for complaining of my characterization of your initial claim. You're specifically dishonest for claiming I "disregarded" an argument you hadn't made yet, and that I then rejected.
Disregard isn't synonymous with dismiss
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar You're dishonest for criticizing me for not addressing an argument you hadn't articulated yet, yes. And for suggesting I was somehow circumventing or avoiding that argument that, again, you had not made. And for persisting in this characterization against all bounds of literacy.
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar This contains exactly zero information about capital punishment of the time(s) presented, and no analysis linking it to the murder rate.
The notion that there was some manner of cumulative deterrent effect is... let's call it novel.
The timeline covers wildly different conditions
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar Just as a side note, the way you're getting mad at me for not addressing a point you hadn't made yet is kinda really bolstering my suggestion you want trans-temporal death penalty. Just saying.
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar My subsequent responses are the only ones where you'd actually raised the subject! And I've bluntly disagreed with your position at each point hence. Saying that I'm ignoring a position I'm engaging with to say that it is wrong is absurd. You're being dishonest.
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar You didn't propose any mechanism by which executing convicted murderers saves people from being murdered. I was mocking this oversight as absurd, because it is.
And I'm gonna be real, your eventual claim isn't substantially more robust, given the lack of evidence for it.
@abysssalsss@Gobroncos30@EllisE46@Shacharit_69@Liv_Agar The chart was provided as evidence of the lack of evidence for the policy you're promoting, which persisted throughout its span.
You could brush up on your logic skills; right now you're saying some wildly stupid shit, and it could be avoided.
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar There's a substantial difference in the wording. Disregarding something means I'm ignoring it. Not what's happening. First, you didn't even introduce the subject, so it's rich to complain about it not getting attention. Second, I refute it, not flee from it as you imply. 2/2
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar You keep using that word. I'm not disregarding anything. I dismiss it as false. Affirmatively regard it as wrong, if you will. These are radically different positions.
You also didn't even mention deterrence; don't treat my lack of mention as malpractice.
@PitmanSabaya@quininequo@SouthernWintrs@Liv_Agar I'm not disregarding shit, you're moving your goalposts. You're also still wrong.
We could compare murder rates with countries with frequent executions, but then you'll just cry that the higher number of murders is evidence of the necessity of the executions. You've got nothing.