• testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      To be fair, insofar as execution methods go, nitrogen asphyxiation is far far far and away the most humane.

      So, like, it is an improvement? It’s less inhumane than they were being at any rate?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t know if you can call any execution method even remotely humane.

        Even if you know it isn’t going to hurt, you still know you’re going to die. There’s no escaping that part.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I didn’t say it was. I said it was more humane.

          If an execution is going to happen, I think doing it in the most humane way possible is better than torturing them to death. That’s a positive switch, even if it’s still bad.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        People keep saying this, but it seems like this execution proved that it’s not true.

        • testfactor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          How so? Cause the dude was vigorously fighting the guys holding a mask to his face to try and stop them from killing him? I don’t think that’s evidence that nitrogen asphyxiation is painful. Dude did the same thing with the lethal injection, and they never even managed to get the needle in.

            • testfactor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Oh, for sure. And I agree that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane. I also understand that justice is hard to manage and measure. Idk, I’m drunk and not paid enough to have to make hard decisions like that, and for that I’m very much appreciative. :)

        • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Hi, pro-choice mathematician who’s done biology work here. Fetuses are alive. Fetuses are composed of living tissues. If a fetus was not alive, it wouldn’t grow. If a fetus doesn’t grow it can’t be born. You will never win an argument with an anti-abortion nutjob if you get basic facts wrong. The reason a fetus doesn’t have the same moral weight as the human it needs to live off of is because fetuses aren’t sapient.

        • GreatCornolio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          1 - it’s still stopping the existence of an organism and preventing a human life from happening after it already started to happen. Call it not killing something, but we’re basically arguing semantics. I’m pro choice, but I mean, own what you are doing. It’s not exactly preventative it’s reactive.

          2 - idk and idc who this hitman guy is, I meant your usual death row guy who viscously killed/etc multiple people in a horrifying way. Someone an overwhelming majority of people would have no problem with being killed. Someone who has demonstrated we permanently need out of society and has spread suffering. I’m anti death penalty, but not because there’s any love lost with those people - only because we convict and kill the wrong people sometimes.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            we’re basically arguing semantics

            Well yes, but you referred to terminating a pregnancy as “killing a blank slate”. The use of the term “killing” has obvious emotional connotations which you were co-opting to support your position. If you’re going to do that then you need to be prepared to defend the appropriateness of that particular verb.

            I meant your usual death row guy who viscously killed/etc multiple people in a horrifying way. Someone an overwhelming majority of people would have no problem with being killed.

            You’re assuming that people generally support killing repugnant criminals, which is not the case. There are some truly awful people in the world, and they may well “deserve” to die, but I do not wish them dead. I think you may find that this is a fairly commonly held position in contemporary society.

            • GreatCornolio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Yea, once someone rapes a child and tortures 3 people for hours before burning down a house, I’m philosophically fine with killing them. I didn’t think that part was too much of a hot take.

              Fair enough about you perceiving a connotation about the verbage, but also, it’s killing something lol. If what I just did to this ant in my kitchen was killing it, then it’s what’s happening to that fetus.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                You said “a guy everyone wants dead” which is obviously never going to be true.

                I’m sure this sounds odd to you, but in contemporary society it kind of is a hot take to want someone dead.