Hacker News Reader

Comment by HighGoldstein | Hacker News Reader

> Wrong. It's barbaric and primitive.

Source?

> Yes, it is. People make mistakes. People have infinite possibility to grow, change and contribute to society. Snuffing everything someone is out because of an arbitrary society rule that ultimately does less harm than murder is indefensible.

Putting aside statistics on actual reform instead of fantastical infinite possibility, as I understand this policy mostly serves to deter foreigners from attempting the potentially very lucrative business of smuggling drugs into Singapore. Even if Singapore didn't take the "barbaric" approach of executing them, they would have to either host them as prisoners on their already very limited land, or go through the process of deporting them to their home country, where they might not even face any consequences and just try again. Why should they bear this burden for people who have no ties to Singapore and will never contribute anything to it?

View on HN

> Source?

Do you know what an opinion is?

> as I understand this policy mostly serves to deter foreigners from attempting the potentially very lucrative business of smuggling drugs into Singapore.

So what? That's not a justification.

> Why should they bear this burden for people who have no ties to Singapore and will never contribute anything to it?

Singapore is perfectly able to control their borders better than most countries. It's not like the US where it's relatively easy to sneak in. 'They might come back' is a poor justification for murder.

>Do you know what an opinion is?

Cool, what makes _your_ opinion better than mine, or that of the Singaporeans?

>Singapore is perfectly able to control their borders better than most countries. It's not like the US where it's relatively easy to sneak in.

Okay, why should they? Drug traffickers are perfectly capable of not attempting to smuggle drugs into Singapore.

> what makes _your_ opinion better than mine, or that of the Singaporeans?

Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct. Not that I'm willing to put in the effort when it already took this much for you to realize I was stating an opinion though.

> Okay, why should they? Drug traffickers are perfectly capable of not attempting to smuggle drugs into Singapore.

If you think casual murder is fine because it's convenient, I don't think there's much for us to discuss anyway. We clearly have drastically different values. I'll just take solace in the fact that Singapore likely won't survive another 100 years.

> Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct.

Out of curiosity, How can your argument "be supported and shown to be objectively correct" ?

It seems the evidence is actually the other way around. After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.

I do not support the death penalty myself, but primarily for ethical and moral reasons to preserve our humanity - which is constantly under attack. But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.

> After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.

If we introduced the death penalty for minor shoplifting, minor shoplifting would probably drop by a huge percentage. Would that justify it?

> But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.

I disagree. When you evaluate all the pros and cons, I think the evidence is solidly against the death penalty.

> If we introduced the death penalty for minor shoplifting, minor shoplifting would probably drop by a huge percentage. Would that justify it?

Of-course it wouldn't - but you are precisely reinforcing my point. Because opponents can claim via evidence that the death penalty is effective for this, if you argue on the basis of "facts". Thus, objectivity should not be used as an argument for an ethical and moral human principle. Such principles stand by themselves to maintain the sanctity of the human soul - no justification needed.

> but you are precisely reinforcing my point. Because opponents can claim via evidence that the death penalty is effective for this, if you argue on the basis of "facts".

I don't believe I am. The death penalty being effective at reducing a crime isn't itself a sufficient justification of the death penalty.

> Thus, objectivity should not be used as an argument for an ethical and moral human principle. Such principles stand by themselves to maintain the sanctity of the human soul - no justification needed.

We do have objective arguments though; ultimately everything can be quantified by the amount of harm or good it does.

> Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct.

Then that's not an opinion, it's a proposition aiming at fact, and you should back it up rather than restating it loudly and more slowly when asked for justification.

It can be both. There's such a thing as opinions that coincide with facts. Until I put in effort to support it though, I only offer it as an opinion.

> you should back it up rather than restating it loudly and more slowly when asked for justification.

It's a fair amount of work to do so, and I haven't seen anyone worthy of putting in such work. This site isn't great, from a practical point of view, for that type of lengthy debate, either.

>and I haven't seen anyone worthy of putting in such work

So aside from the subhuman Singaporeans who should be violently forced to adopt your ethics, it is also everyone on HN that is far below your golden ethical level and not worth of effortful discussion (but definitely worth moral lecturing and grandstanding), got it.

> So aside from the subhuman Singaporeans who should be violently forced to adopt your ethics,

I didn't use the word subhuman, I used the word barbaric, and that's more regarding the authoritarian regime in power.

> it is also everyone on HN that is far below your golden ethical level and not worth of effortful discussion (but definitely worth moral lecturing and grandstanding), got it.

There's plenty of people who I could have a great, in-depth, reasonable discussion with, it's just that you're not one of them. Even this reply of yours is mainly bait, reliant on twisting things to get a reaction.

You're one of those commenters who needs to have the last word...this unproductive discussion is still going to go in for a few more replies yet because you can't let stuff go. I'm guessing my comment offended you because you live in Singapore and like it, is that it? All of this is just defensiveness?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com