Discussing politics and other contentious sunjects online feels to me like it’s counterproductive these days and even though I try not to get suckered in, I often can’t help myself. Usually though I just end up feeling frustrated and sometimes angry at the other person either missing my points or refusing to accept them.
Thinking back to conversations I’ve had here and previously on Reddit, not only can I not remember an example of me “winning” the discussion and the other person changing their mind or conceding the point, I also cannot think of a time where my mind was changed either.
So have you ever begun a discussion online with someone with a different view point to yours and either you, or they, changed the others mind?
To me, the other side of the death penalty discussion is the Batman and Joker thought experiment, as described in detail by Jason Todd (Red Hood), but it’s perhaps a strawman because it’s taken to some extremes.
It’s easy to look at “The State” as an evil mammoth organization that can rarely apply fair sentencing - but that’s a bit doomer to the entire idea of a justice system. I do think standards of certainty should be much greater than what they are, but as with the Joker, there has to be a reasonable limit.
Hundreds of people have been proven innocent, and it’s not as if all cases have been reviewed by this small group of pro bono lawyers fighting for justice. How many thousands of falsely-convicted people are serving time right now?
There is no Joker, there is no supervillain killing scores of people every time that they escape maximum security; and there never has been such a criminal mastermind. If a Joker does appear, we can change the law then, certainly. But until then, we should stop our rather incompetent and frequently malicious state from murdering innocents
https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/
Counterpoint: Brian Thompson has murdered more people than The Joker ever would have even without Batman saving victims.