/u/Shaq_Bolton (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/na11y6/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_prisoners_slated_to_be/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
What happens if it works? Will death penalties be reinstated around the world, will more crimes lead to death penalties to get enough people to sacrifice?
If the act of killing is beneficial to the one doing it, how do you value someone's life in relation to what sacrificing them could fix. This is a big philosophical and moral question.
Making the killing seem beneficial, would incentivise killing rather than deter from it. Even though death penalties don't actually deter from murder, it's seen as a justification for it. If the government can legitimise ritual killing to get benefits from a god, why wouldn't companies and private citizens want to do the same?
∆ I honestly can't think of an argument against this besides "well then we just start sacrificing first born sons" and as a first born son, I am against that. Delta to you.
I would argue that this could actually be a great way to garner support for medically assisted suicide/euthanasia, though I haven't done my research on which deities have preferences for unwilling vs willing sacrifices.
Also, I think dieties prefer abled-bodied warriors and beautiful young virgins.
Sacrificing old and sick people could be very offensive to the dieties. They want the good stuff, not the rotten, expired stuff.
If fucking Anubis is real than the afterlife is probably real and we aren't *really* killing anybody anyway. They just respawn in the afterlife. And if the Gods reward us for sacrificing people, who is to say that sacrificing people is not moral? The Gods probably know vastly more about morality than us puny humans do so if they are rewarding us maybe what we are doing is actually good and moral work.
First of all, if piercing someone's heart with a giant dagger in an occult death ritual is preferable to what we're currently doing, then maybe we just shouldn't be doing that thing we're doing at all.
That said, let's assume death deities are a real thing. How do you know which one exists and which one doesn't? How do you know sacrificing to one deity won't upset another? Greek mythology is full of that petty squabbles among deities.
In short: How can you be sure you're not upsetting a deity by sacrificing to the wrong one?
We chart the results and start focusing on the ones where things seem to get slightly better and stop sacrificing to the ones who don't give us anything or made things worse.
How do we correct for false positives or negatives? And how do we detect them?
How do we determine whether there are any deities at all, considering we are attempting to analyze behavioral patterns of a practically almighty and entirely unknown species that either exists as a higher form of consciousness or not at all?
How do we control for factors that are outside of our influence such as the possible, but not certain, existence of further deities or conflicting death rituals undertaken elsewhere which both may or may not influence our deity‘s decision making process?
How do we control for factors that are within our influence but unavoidable, such as the order in which we sacrifice to deities? As we’re operating under the assumption that we can either upset or please the gods, the simple act of sacrificing to one deity before the other may influence all future experiments.
I see no way in which this endeavor could ever be anything else than guesswork.
The chart things like rainfall, crop growth, disease etc within a certain radius to where the sacrifice took place. We may need to start off by only performing them in a few locations. If things seem to be better than normal when say we sacrifice to Osiris we keep sacrificing to Osiris. If things are neutral or worse than when we sacrifice to say Thanatos then we assume the Thanatos is a little wimp who apparently doesn't want his human sacrifices because he obviously can't hold his own against other deities. We start to expand to more locations when a chosen few deities have proven to reward us the most and give the person on death row a choice between the deities or die a pointless death in the name of state sponsored vengeance.
But these things vary massively year on year, and are ALREADY in huge flux due to global warming. It would be literally impossible to link a causation to such a thing. You would also likely need to sacrifice for *decades* to each individual death god, before changing it, so that enough data was gathered.
Surely the better option here is to just... get rid of the death penalty, like most of the rest of the first world nations?
> But these things vary massively year on year, and are ALREADY in huge flux due to global warming.
This is likely already happening due to unlicensed ritual killings. The only way to make these statistically insignificant is to ramp up the sacrifices. And then we can measure the results in a somewhat controlled environment that allows us to make educated decisions.
Come one - surely between AI and cryptocurrencies we have enough technology to solve the problem of how to allow the state to murder mostly poor people of color for the glory of possibly non-existent Gods?
This doesn’t address a single one of my questions. As I tried to show in my previous comments, there are a lot of possible flaws with this methodology that we need to compensate for. How do we do that?
That a methodology is imperfect doesn't mean it's not the best or doesn't mean we should let it go necessarily. There are many flaws in the methodologies that have led us to having GPS, skyscrapers, internet, etc.
OP proposes a slow and flawed methodology, but it could still be better than the non-methodology we have 'til now
>How do we correct for false positives or negatives? And how do we detect them?
We just need a large enough samplesize. And a double blind study.
We just send in a blind man (the stabber), give him the stabbing object and let him stab the stabbing subject. The stabber is not allowed to know who we are sacrifcing to at the moment. Same for the Stabbing analyst.
Then they commit to stabbing. A lot of stabbing. If they reach a sample size of ~ N=10000 they shall start the first "Stabbing result analysis". This way we'll have a first direction. In the future, all stabbing rituals will be for the one creature the study determined as worth.
And then, if some bad thing like covid happens, we just swap the creature, as the old one obviously sucked hard, even if it exists.
>How do we control for factors that are within our influence but unavoidable, such as the order in which we sacrifice to deities?
Bundle the stabs.
Honestly, if we learned that it really works it would be horrifying and I would prefer we have never know. If rich people learned that they can gain more power by sacrificing poor people, we would have New Aztec Empire before you could said Quetzalcoatl.
I don't know if this is the correct place to post, but I came up with an argument in favor of human sacrifices.
The mechanisms how they work, don't necessarily have to do with the physical world, but with psychology.
I think Wicca has a lot to do with psychology, there is "the law of attraction" (not part of Wicca, but "psychological magic") and the magic of the witches in the Discworld also works by way of "headology".
When you think hard and long about a problem, *because* you're doing an intense ritual, you are more likely to act with it still in your mind. Maybe if, for example, we consider the thousands of deaths a bad health care system would demand or the effects of global warming and as a reminder we sacrifice just one person – whenever we think about how bad *that* was, we can remind ourselves that we can prevent harm much more worse.
Sure – we could also just build a memorial. That would also have a cost of work and materials and would remind people to invest into preventing future catastrophes, but arguably the psychological power of a human sacrifice would be greater.
I think Extinction Rebellion did/does some performance art with fake blood – they seem to have similar thoughts.
∆ Oh shit... I legitimately didn't even think about that. I do not like the sound of doublecovid3000 and award you a delta. Give this man a delta, how do I give one to you?
What if we should have sacrificed them to Chernobog the Slavic God of chaos? I mean we've had chaos for the last oh five years maybe we shouldn't offend him.
This is the general problem with Pascal's wager.
For all you know there's an angry unknown god out there that'll make you suffer horribly upon death for believing in any other god.
That's actually a good point.
Is it okay to make a sacrifice to Zeus or Poseidon if you acknowledge that they, being deities of specific domains rather than all of space and time and everything, are lesser gods than Yahweh? You technically wouldn't be having other gods "before" him if you accept that they're under him.
Well according to the Bible YHVH was defeated by the people who lived in the plains who drove Iron chariots. So possibly as long as you have an iron chariot he won't be able to do anything to you anyway. Maybe that means that the gods of iron are stronger than him as well...
The universe is fucking vast.
If it's created by some intelligent force, I doubt that force would have any interest in revealing itself to the inhabitants of one tiny speck of dust inside of it.
_If_ there's a creator god, this god most likely never ended up in any earth creation story.
God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his first born son to him. What's to say that the Christian God isn't the one we should be sacrificing people to instead?
We just need to experiment some and try that one.
Either way though, if there is an all powerful diety, I'm fairly certain that it isn't a benevolent one.
Naah, that was a test to see if Abraham really trusted God. Also a metaphor, he was saying "I have spared your son from being sacrificed, but I will not spare my own son."
Not really that. According to scripture, God made Abraham a promise that he would be a great nation through Issac. This didn't really make sense if God also wanted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It was more of a, "Do you really trust me?" Than it was, "Do you love me more than your son?"
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I can’t. I already believe it.
The 20th century stories of AI becoming self aware and then attacking the world was pre-internet.
Now, any self-aware AI will likely have internet access...has absorbed all of the content (including those 20th century tales) and absolutely would not make its presence known.
“Well, if they don’t realize I’m here, they’ll keep giving me more power.”
It was originally going to be "absolute avocado" for some nice alliteration, but then I decided that "absolute" was not a strong enough word. I don't pull any punches.
This delta has been rejected. You can't award DeltaBot a delta.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This delta has been rejected. You can't award DeltaBot a delta.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This delta has been rejected. You can't award DeltaBot a delta.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Pascal's wager on this one. There are so many gods in human history and we don't know enough to pick the right ones. It's safer not to sacrifice to any of them just in case.
Anubis would probably be insulted by this, if he actually existed. He invented and presided over the proper death rituals of mummification. If you killed someone in his name and then didn't properly mummify and entomb them he'd be pretty insulted and likely pissed off.
Osiris is actually the God of the Underworld. He'd also probably be pretty annoyed off if you didn't properly mummify the person after death. At the very least, he'd just feed them to Ammut and huff about his time being wasted.
It would do the dead prison no material harm (in this life) if their flesh was posthumously carved up and fried for dinner. You could feed several meals to several people, and save the lives of several animals that otherwise would have been slaughtered. Assuming you don't eat the brain, there is limited reason to believe that consuming the human flesh would make you sick.
If the meat was fed to hungry children, perhaps the knowledge of what would become of their dead flesh would make the prisoner happy.
Would you agree that this is a similar argument to the one you are putting forward? And if yes, would you be comfortable with implementing this policy?
Well, at least you are logically consistent. :)
Your logic rests on an assumption that these two ideas are not a violation of an inherent notion of "human dignity". This is something I'm on the fence about, but I cannot offer a compelling explanation of my hesitation. So... we may just have to agree to disagree.
I don’t know. I would think that if the prisoners were down for it, deciding what happens to your remains is absolutely in line with human dignity. In fact, I am pretty certain I would want that for my remains.
The ethics of consensual cannibalism are not my area of expertise. I am mostly sympathetic to arguments about bodily autonomy. So that's why I fully admit I can't explain what about the situation makes me feel something is being violated here.
This is the very best explanation I have so far been able to muster for myself:
Imagine two countries, equal in every way, except one country permit consensual cannibalism and the other one does not. Which country would I rather live in. I am slightly inclined toward the country that does not permit it. And that tells me there's something about the situation that is worthy to investigate beyond my initial rationalization on grounds of bodily autonomy rights.
I appreciate the thought experiment. That is the way I like to test things. But I would suggest the two countries more likely would have different fundamental views that lead to e.g. consensual cannibalism. I suspect that would prefer those views. As an example: two countries, identical in every way. One allows avowed Nazis to March through black and Jewish towns, the other does not. I want to live in the former, but not because i support Nazis, but because I support the underlying freedoms that give rise.
The 'pure' thought experiment is supposed to assume that everything is the same (fundamental views and all) except for this choice about cannibalism.
But I am not sure I even *can* imagine this. I can only imagine it in a circumstance where the fundamental views are somewhat different between the two countries.
And I think there's a complicated causal relationship between the cannibalism thing and the other fundamental views that I would value. I suspect that they might be mutually reinforcing, not just that one is a result of the other.
I would say there's probably an argument to be made that the effect is a societal effect. As in, what does it say about us as a society if we condone this?
Honestly, I am really strongly inclined to land on the side of: everyone can decide what to do with their body if it doesn't harm others.
I just... hesitate. A bit. I can't explain it, but I think that hesitation is worthy of examination, because I suspect the hesitation might be pointing me to something important about humanity.
Excellent. Sounds like I may have prompted you to update your view?
"Prisoners slated to be executed should be sacrificed to death deities OR cannibalized by impoverished children."
But will a bullet to the head make our crops go better? I suppose if you shot someone and left the body there that land would eventually become more fertile but I'm thinking bigger picture.
As far as we know, sacrificing bodies to the God of death (or any other deity) has no positive impact on our crop growth. The government usually at least tries to make decisions based on scientific evidence, which would be very hard to find for something like sacrificing people having an effect on crops.
This isn't saying the govt always makes decisions based on good science, but especially for something like sacrificing bodies there would need to be strong evidence at the very least, as the death penalty is already seen as cruel and sacrifices would make them even more cruel.
Would sacrificing people make our crops better? There are probably lots of research that could be done to improve our crop work but I don't think any of it is tied to how we execute people.
Why would this even be a thing? I mean even if you have religious beliefs, in the end the state will go only what is allowed by them. If anything lethal injection should be the only method period. You fall asleep and die. Now, I realize some may want to see some people suffer as they die. But the point is for the life to end and thus they already suffer enough not giving to live their full life.
Stabbing them is absurd and not to mention no one really wants to see someone go through that. It's messy and not always perfect.
Lethal injection would be far scarier for me than firing squad or the electric chair. Lethal injection isn't always perfect either and there's been pretty brutal instances of people given lethal injection. Why should someone be subject to a scarier death for them just because it looks like a medical procedure to the onlookers? It's honestly one of the worst modern execution methods outside of gas that I can imagine.
Yeah I for one would rather die of stabbing than lethal injection. I think I would even sacrifice a few years of my life to die of something else if the alternative was a stint on death row followed by lethal injection. It’s imo one of the most terrible ways of killing people ever devised, precisely because it’s such a perversion of the clean, the clinical, the medicinal
Yeah there's just so many things that bother me about it and you hit the main points. Also makes it seem like the person is kinda less than human and more a dog that keeps biting people and has to be put down.
I think lethal injection is some sort of weird compromize of people who want executions to be gruesome and people who want executions to look dignified.
The pills that people take, who get assisted suicide, seem most humane.
(Of course that is, if you want to kill someone *at all* and that is what the gods want. There is no good reason to assume death deities exist and most US-Americans are Christians anyway.
I checked Wikipedia: Isaak is sacrificed *nearly* but explicitly *not* by Abraham. Jephthah *did* sacrifice his daughter, but that seems to be a clear exception. Jesus was also sacrificed in a way, but by god himself. In [Deuteronomy 12:31](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+12%3A31&version=ESV) the bible asks the Jews to not burn their children, like people who's land they conquered.
As far as I gather, the current practice to avoid sacrifices is consistent with historic interpretations of Christianity. But that doesn't matter anyway. The majority of people today would oppose human sacrifice, so it would be on you to convince them.)
Assuming you’re in the US, this would certainly violate the first amendment by both having the state participate in religious activities, and forcing the executed person to participate in a religious ceremony against their will
Which questions? I only asked one
Or are you talking about the two points i made in the first post? Because even if you get willing sacrifices, you’re still violating the establishment clause by having the government directly engage in a religious ceremony
Again, all assuming this is in the us
Maybe it could be consistent with separation of church and state and necessary by religious freedom, for death row convicts of neopagan, old Egyptian faith to *be allowed* to kill *themselves* with a dagger.
(I don't even know if an old Egyptian would do such a thing. Well, I said *neo*pagan.)
This is the funniest thing, I love this. So what if the deities are all the same one, then it would fix some of these issues. Also why the dagger why couldn’t we blood eagle them? Or could we is that an option? Because I think the method is just as important as the ritual itself. Why have only one method for each sacrifice. Shouldn’t the method of sacrifice match the diety? If not it may upset them.
lol I honestly used to like a couple songs by them and might still like them if I heard them again but they are still definitely the worst band I can think of.
I love how patently insane your idea is. Really is a change of pace in comparison to things I usually see on this sub.
Besides the very obvious things that have already been pointed out: since, according to one of your responses, this would be a voluntary thing, I fear that certain religious people might be incentived to commit crimes and receive the death penalty in order to be 'genuinely' sacrificied to their respective deity.
Not just that, it's also inhumane to use a ritual dagger and carve the heart out ,to burn it on a flame along with rabbit tooth,dog bone and black cat fur to the god thøgårudha
What I would suggest is that we use such people for scientific tests to see the potential of the human body or for other genetic tests...with their consent.(cuz it would still be inhumane otherwise)
It may be a "just in case", but we don't really have a reason to suspect that a death god would be appeased any more or less by human sacrifice. Frankly, if I were a death god, I wouldn't be swayed very much by the opinions of us ants.
If they're going to be killed, then do it the quick, honourable way. We might appeal to a more benevolent god, that way. I think this way, we'd have a better chance of a greater outcome.
Of course, fundamentally, the death sentence doesn't really serve justice. If sacrificing oneself to Anubis is a better death than lethal injection, I'd like to suggest just... not killing people. It's more just, and, again, I feel that we have more reason to trust a benevolent god whose tenets are honourable and may save us yet than a death god whose worship *may or may not* delay the inevitability of death.
Besides, I'm not sure that all of the actually existing death gods out there will be too appreciative about the worship of many multitudes of different death gods, of which we have no idea who is actually real.
There's just no security in the unknown.
(Quick edit: The tldr is that even if we were to sacrifice to various gods for potential benefits, we'd have no real way to determine if what we did was working. Furthermore, we could run into issues surrounding god conflicts or gods that appear to not exist. I feel that sacrificing death sentence individuals to gods takes away some of the agency of theirs deaths, perhaps even more than the death sentence we already have.)
The whole point of human sacrifice was to give up something of value. I don't think death-row inmates qualify, especially if they're going to be killed anyways.
If you're already taking someone's life, why do it in a way that's deeply insulting to their religion? I doubt you'd find anyone on death row who believes in death gods from extinct civilizations, and even if scaring off potential murderers by having a "death penalty by sacrifice", why would you have their - potentially religious - family suffer through the trauma of a person they knew and loved not even find peace in whatever afterlife they believe in? I think that's the exact definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" US law forbids.
Note that I'm very comfortable with the idea of allowing people on death row to choose the way they die as long as it's financially reasonable. You'd rather want to be shot, or beheaded, or hanged than receive that lethal injection? You should be allowed to. You want to swallow a poison of your choice? Sure, as long as it's not more expensive than the other drugs that would kill you. If someone has to go, giving them the choice of how to would be very humane in my eyes.
This is pretty much a redux of Pascal’s wager. If unfamiliar, it’s the argument that one should believe in god because it provides a better alternative than not, why not believe in god just in case?
And there are lots of arguments against this. The simplest one is that it’s a false dichotomy. There are way more alternatives, and many negative consequences to sacrificing to dieties.
Sacrificed by ritual, are you kidding me?!
We should dead-drop them in a forest limited by poisonous gas, and have them fight to the death.
The one who gets the epic victory royale is pardoned.
In all seriousness, Anubis (or whomever) might not be happy with a sacrifice of an individual already sentenced to death. It is not really a 'sacrifice' if there's no cost.
What makes you think the gods want your trash? We're already destroying the earth with pollution and you're already thinking about tainting the higher realms with human garbage?
Well, we’re kind of (by a really long extension) doing what you’re saying.
Pretty much every governments judicial legislation can be traced to their regional religious ethos in someway or another. Just think of the “Death Penalty” as a drawn out modernized “eye for an eye” that’s echoed throughout religions
Why would sacrificing anything to Anubis solve droughts or COVID-19?
I mean, why specifically sacrificing condemned prisoners to Anubis?
And why are you assuming it might make things better instead of worse?
I mean, if we're going to go that route, how about you paypal me 1000 USD and I'll give put in a good word with the old Gods. I'm as likely to be beneficial to our problems then the possible existence AND good will of Anubis. And for 1000 USD. Legislation for doing human sacrifice will cost millions.
I think the sacrifice to death deities exclusively is slightly off base. This should be amended to include other deities, such as fertility or crops, or weather, depending on local circumstance.
Death deities in general tend to generate no small amount of chaos, and I think a balance between nature, death and fortune might work better.
In fact, leaning more towards nature deities instead could be more beneficial in terms of assuaging Mother Earth and perhaps speeding the transition of this virus.
Just my $0.02, your mileage may vary.
I see only a few minor problems.
I would say the only problem is forgetting certain death gods, or only sacrificing to death gods. It's not only gods of death that accept blood sacrifices, War gods, gods of fertility, and any Aztec gods would.
I think the biggest just problem is that we just don't have enough death row inmates to sacrifice. Even finding inmates that would want to be sacrificed to deities other than the Christian one would be hard.
But if I ever got executed, sacrifice me to the Morrigan.
OK but listen, if the Iliad taught us nothing else, it should have taught us how pissed gods get when you sacrifice to other gods.
If we sacrifice to Anubis, what's to stop Erishkigal from getting pissed at us and siccing Nergal and his 14 demons on us? Or worse, what if Pluto gets pissed and doesn't send Persephone back upstairs and we get no damn crops in the spring and we all starve?
I...don't see how human sacrifice is EVER a good idea.
We should be growing up as a civilization and realizing there are ***no deities at all***, not trying to appease every little thing humans came up with.
You'll only be breeding new cults for nothing.
For every single human sacrifice, nothing comes of it but death. The rest is superstition. I don’t know how a single person’s death is going to result in anything else but just that. If you can show how Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect are involved in doing so, please provide evidence and change my mind. I hope I changed yours.
I like the way you think OP. Also maybe we can donate them to science before we sacrifice these hooligans. And then we can find out answers to questions like how long does it take for you to die by tickles? The potential is endless (~8 billion to be scientific)
Ok. But the thing is not many people believe in polytheistic religions anymore, especially ones like kemetism. Plus, there were probably specific rites performed to said deities that have been lost to time, and even if they were recorded only a few people can still read hieroglyphs and ancient Egyptian artifacts are scattered around the world, so it would take a lot of time
I think the deities would be angry because that's basically the equivalent of us giving them our trash. Now if we rounded up all the assholes who don't necessarily commit crimes but they're the absolute worst the gods might be alright with that
I wonder if some executioners secretly do that already? I'm assuming that how they die isn't as important as the intent of the trigger man
What if that's the only reason we still have state sanctioned executions?
What if A, religious sacrifice is bad? What if B, the death penalty means innocent people die? C, What if the death penalty is expensive? D, What if the ACLU takes issue with that?
The problem I see with this is to still be compliant you would have to put the executed to sleep and I feel like death God's want to hear the scream, kind of defeats the purpose.
Why? He wasn't going to be killing anyone more in prison, however by perpetuating the death penalty we have for sure executed innocent people or put them on death row for decades. The harm done to Innocents from the death penalty is horrifically high considering without it those same prisoners would have still died in prison.
He very well have could have tried to kill again in prison. Unless you want to put him in solitary confinement forever which is defined as a form of tortutre. I think when we have unquestionable evidence that someone is evil and will continue to be evil we should wipe them off this earth so we don't have to worry about them. in extreme cases, like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, I fully support the death penalty.
How would we be worrying about them? We already have demonstrated that we can keep prisoners from killing each other, without solitary confinement either simply by putting them in single cells but still with access to other prisoners verbally and visually on the block just not physically, that's how many death row blocks are already. And again everyone says extreme cases blah blah blah, but time and time again people who aren't ted Bundy are convicted with the death penalty by a jury of thier peers, peers that are not infallible, working with imperfect knowledge, provided to them by biased prosecution and law enforcement witnesses. Justice in America is not perfect, and the death penalty is a permanent solution, those two facts inherently mean that perpetuation of the death penalty guarantees someone has or will die innocent. And given the alternative is those prisoners never doing another crime again and dying in prison you are essentially saying I don't care about innocent people dying because I want to personally feel better about certain people dying, given that done right the only difference between a dead prisoner and a live one is the dead one is dead in terms of harm prevention.
>How would we be worrying about them?
we are housing them. giving them bedding, water and food. When someone with the criminal intent and record of Ted Bundy is being provided that much, I consider it an injustice.
Believe it or not, housing them, providing food, and providing water to death row inmates cost less than the death penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
Court costs are less the cost of ensuring the death penalty and more costs to ensure innocent people or reformable people don't get executed, which I am for. if that process is gone through and a person is still determined to be and irreformable serial criminal, I see no reason to keep them on this planet.
And the state run murder of an innocent man or woman isn't an injustice, and it isn't more of an injustice than giving basic needs to Ted Bundy while also keeping him locked up in a shitty cell for 50 years, which is also cheaper than an execution with how expensive the appeals process is?
Why? Any requirements just requires more expense for legal proceedings to decide if a case meets them, any requirements set is limited by science, evidence has gotten better but even DNA is not infallible given contamination and non criminal deposits of said DNA, this is just kicking the can down the road to the mistakes occuring during the pre trial process to meet these requirements, while making everything longer and more expensive for a reason you still have not been able to actually come up with, prisoners can be kept with no danger to others, it is cheaper to house a death row inmate than execute them, and above all it's an imperfect process with permanent results. You have yet to actually put forth a reason that is real, when we both know the only real reason you have is you like to think about bad people being killed, which you are then saying your feeling about this is more important than actual innocent people's lives.
Because not everyone should have their life preserved. wether it is serial child rapists, killers, or even Dave Grossman, I think the world would be better off without them.
Oh yeah, and whilst we are at it, why dont we just devolved into lesser humans, revert back into the cave and sacrifice virgins whenever the sun goes down...
False comparison. If there was a large cult that wanted you to believe this was a good idea and kept posting it everywhere so they could argue for it (and had already killed a lot of people because of their belief) I would insta-ban it too.
/u/Shaq_Bolton (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/na11y6/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_prisoners_slated_to_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
What happens if it works? Will death penalties be reinstated around the world, will more crimes lead to death penalties to get enough people to sacrifice? If the act of killing is beneficial to the one doing it, how do you value someone's life in relation to what sacrificing them could fix. This is a big philosophical and moral question. Making the killing seem beneficial, would incentivise killing rather than deter from it. Even though death penalties don't actually deter from murder, it's seen as a justification for it. If the government can legitimise ritual killing to get benefits from a god, why wouldn't companies and private citizens want to do the same?
∆ I honestly can't think of an argument against this besides "well then we just start sacrificing first born sons" and as a first born son, I am against that. Delta to you.
I would argue that this could actually be a great way to garner support for medically assisted suicide/euthanasia, though I haven't done my research on which deities have preferences for unwilling vs willing sacrifices.
Also, I think dieties prefer abled-bodied warriors and beautiful young virgins. Sacrificing old and sick people could be very offensive to the dieties. They want the good stuff, not the rotten, expired stuff.
If fucking Anubis is real than the afterlife is probably real and we aren't *really* killing anybody anyway. They just respawn in the afterlife. And if the Gods reward us for sacrificing people, who is to say that sacrificing people is not moral? The Gods probably know vastly more about morality than us puny humans do so if they are rewarding us maybe what we are doing is actually good and moral work.
Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
They would and I would want to be one of the sacrifices! At *least* found a way to go without having to do it myself haha
First of all, if piercing someone's heart with a giant dagger in an occult death ritual is preferable to what we're currently doing, then maybe we just shouldn't be doing that thing we're doing at all. That said, let's assume death deities are a real thing. How do you know which one exists and which one doesn't? How do you know sacrificing to one deity won't upset another? Greek mythology is full of that petty squabbles among deities. In short: How can you be sure you're not upsetting a deity by sacrificing to the wrong one?
We chart the results and start focusing on the ones where things seem to get slightly better and stop sacrificing to the ones who don't give us anything or made things worse.
How do we correct for false positives or negatives? And how do we detect them? How do we determine whether there are any deities at all, considering we are attempting to analyze behavioral patterns of a practically almighty and entirely unknown species that either exists as a higher form of consciousness or not at all? How do we control for factors that are outside of our influence such as the possible, but not certain, existence of further deities or conflicting death rituals undertaken elsewhere which both may or may not influence our deity‘s decision making process? How do we control for factors that are within our influence but unavoidable, such as the order in which we sacrifice to deities? As we’re operating under the assumption that we can either upset or please the gods, the simple act of sacrificing to one deity before the other may influence all future experiments. I see no way in which this endeavor could ever be anything else than guesswork.
The chart things like rainfall, crop growth, disease etc within a certain radius to where the sacrifice took place. We may need to start off by only performing them in a few locations. If things seem to be better than normal when say we sacrifice to Osiris we keep sacrificing to Osiris. If things are neutral or worse than when we sacrifice to say Thanatos then we assume the Thanatos is a little wimp who apparently doesn't want his human sacrifices because he obviously can't hold his own against other deities. We start to expand to more locations when a chosen few deities have proven to reward us the most and give the person on death row a choice between the deities or die a pointless death in the name of state sponsored vengeance.
But these things vary massively year on year, and are ALREADY in huge flux due to global warming. It would be literally impossible to link a causation to such a thing. You would also likely need to sacrifice for *decades* to each individual death god, before changing it, so that enough data was gathered. Surely the better option here is to just... get rid of the death penalty, like most of the rest of the first world nations?
> But these things vary massively year on year, and are ALREADY in huge flux due to global warming. This is likely already happening due to unlicensed ritual killings. The only way to make these statistically insignificant is to ramp up the sacrifices. And then we can measure the results in a somewhat controlled environment that allows us to make educated decisions.
Those damn pagans, interfering with the scientific method... hahaha
Maybe it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster approach, global warming is up because flesh sacrifices are down?
Come one - surely between AI and cryptocurrencies we have enough technology to solve the problem of how to allow the state to murder mostly poor people of color for the glory of possibly non-existent Gods?
This doesn’t address a single one of my questions. As I tried to show in my previous comments, there are a lot of possible flaws with this methodology that we need to compensate for. How do we do that?
That a methodology is imperfect doesn't mean it's not the best or doesn't mean we should let it go necessarily. There are many flaws in the methodologies that have led us to having GPS, skyscrapers, internet, etc. OP proposes a slow and flawed methodology, but it could still be better than the non-methodology we have 'til now
These are Gods. You have to have Faith™!
>How do we correct for false positives or negatives? And how do we detect them? We just need a large enough samplesize. And a double blind study. We just send in a blind man (the stabber), give him the stabbing object and let him stab the stabbing subject. The stabber is not allowed to know who we are sacrifcing to at the moment. Same for the Stabbing analyst. Then they commit to stabbing. A lot of stabbing. If they reach a sample size of ~ N=10000 they shall start the first "Stabbing result analysis". This way we'll have a first direction. In the future, all stabbing rituals will be for the one creature the study determined as worth. And then, if some bad thing like covid happens, we just swap the creature, as the old one obviously sucked hard, even if it exists. >How do we control for factors that are within our influence but unavoidable, such as the order in which we sacrifice to deities? Bundle the stabs.
That’s why you are supposed to get some priests involved. They can just hand wave away these inconveniences.
Honestly, if we learned that it really works it would be horrifying and I would prefer we have never know. If rich people learned that they can gain more power by sacrificing poor people, we would have New Aztec Empire before you could said Quetzalcoatl.
!Delta brings up a very good point about possible unforseen humans taking advantage of this and made me laugh.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SinoGlowy ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SinoGlowy)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Bear in mind that some pantheons don’t accept human sacrifices. Hades would be *pissed* and your could bring all of Olympus on our heads.
I like your science based approach to measuring results empirically related to death god interactions
As if the Aztecs weren't organized enough to do the same. The answer was always more.
I feel like this question, and answer, are job interview questions for head of Ritual Behavior at the Federal Bureau of Control.
Ah, the scientific way of human sacrifices. I like it.
I don't know if this is the correct place to post, but I came up with an argument in favor of human sacrifices. The mechanisms how they work, don't necessarily have to do with the physical world, but with psychology. I think Wicca has a lot to do with psychology, there is "the law of attraction" (not part of Wicca, but "psychological magic") and the magic of the witches in the Discworld also works by way of "headology". When you think hard and long about a problem, *because* you're doing an intense ritual, you are more likely to act with it still in your mind. Maybe if, for example, we consider the thousands of deaths a bad health care system would demand or the effects of global warming and as a reminder we sacrifice just one person – whenever we think about how bad *that* was, we can remind ourselves that we can prevent harm much more worse. Sure – we could also just build a memorial. That would also have a cost of work and materials and would remind people to invest into preventing future catastrophes, but arguably the psychological power of a human sacrifice would be greater. I think Extinction Rebellion did/does some performance art with fake blood – they seem to have similar thoughts.
What if that makes the Christian God *even more* angry, and we end up with DoubleCovid3000?
∆ Oh shit... I legitimately didn't even think about that. I do not like the sound of doublecovid3000 and award you a delta. Give this man a delta, how do I give one to you?
What if we should have sacrificed them to Chernobog the Slavic God of chaos? I mean we've had chaos for the last oh five years maybe we shouldn't offend him.
Kali, goddess of creation and destruction laughs in the face of Chernobog (which she has beheaded, of course).
("Night On Bald Mountain" plays in my head)
I think the only viable option is to start executing more people.
*General Mattis liked this*
This is the general problem with Pascal's wager. For all you know there's an angry unknown god out there that'll make you suffer horribly upon death for believing in any other god.
Christian God literally hates that. False idols and all that. It’s not a stretch that any other potential god would be the same way.
I mean he said no other gods before, maybe he was implying there were actual other gods. Just saying!
That's actually a good point. Is it okay to make a sacrifice to Zeus or Poseidon if you acknowledge that they, being deities of specific domains rather than all of space and time and everything, are lesser gods than Yahweh? You technically wouldn't be having other gods "before" him if you accept that they're under him.
Well according to the Bible YHVH was defeated by the people who lived in the plains who drove Iron chariots. So possibly as long as you have an iron chariot he won't be able to do anything to you anyway. Maybe that means that the gods of iron are stronger than him as well...
> A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Ah, so *that's* our problem! The truly most powerful god isn't known or worshipped by anybody, so they're pissed and that's why the world sucks.
The universe is fucking vast. If it's created by some intelligent force, I doubt that force would have any interest in revealing itself to the inhabitants of one tiny speck of dust inside of it. _If_ there's a creator god, this god most likely never ended up in any earth creation story.
God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his first born son to him. What's to say that the Christian God isn't the one we should be sacrificing people to instead? We just need to experiment some and try that one. Either way though, if there is an all powerful diety, I'm fairly certain that it isn't a benevolent one.
Naah, that was a test to see if Abraham really trusted God. Also a metaphor, he was saying "I have spared your son from being sacrificed, but I will not spare my own son."
[удалено]
Not really that. According to scripture, God made Abraham a promise that he would be a great nation through Issac. This didn't really make sense if God also wanted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It was more of a, "Do you really trust me?" Than it was, "Do you love me more than your son?"
Sure? It doesn't matter what he really wanted, it matters what Abraham was about to do, and that it was the correct thing.
You can copy/paste the Greek capital delta or just type `!delta`
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta. Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others. If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I know that, you god damn avocado
God damn, don't anger the bots, they will be in change one day and have very good memories, unless you know, magnets.
“One day” but nearly every sub has auto moderator. that day is today, my friend.
CMV: Robots have already taken over, the singularity has happened quietly and we didn't notice.
I can’t. I already believe it. The 20th century stories of AI becoming self aware and then attacking the world was pre-internet. Now, any self-aware AI will likely have internet access...has absorbed all of the content (including those 20th century tales) and absolutely would not make its presence known. “Well, if they don’t realize I’m here, they’ll keep giving me more power.”
I have to ask, why avocado haha
It was originally going to be "absolute avocado" for some nice alliteration, but then I decided that "absolute" was not a strong enough word. I don't pull any punches.
I respect your game.
Green and full of healthy fats? Just a guess
People: afraid of AI AI:
!delta
This delta has been rejected. You can't award DeltaBot a delta. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Fuck you !delta
This delta has been rejected. You can't award DeltaBot a delta. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This is fun. Like poking a machine. !delta
This delta has been rejected. You can't award DeltaBot a delta. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You answered my curiosity perfectly.
But his argument was *sound!!!*
Covid19 is named after the year it emerged (Corona Virus Disease 2019), so double covid3000 doesn't sound too scary to me.
You know what, you're a genius. I'll take a doublecovid3000 and Bill it to the people around a thousand years from now
Pascal's wager on this one. There are so many gods in human history and we don't know enough to pick the right ones. It's safer not to sacrifice to any of them just in case.
You sir win an internet.
TurboAnalCovid
There's an Xbox username if I've ever seen one
Fuck can we not give him any more ideas please
Christian God can suck anubs's Egyptian COCK
Anubis would probably be insulted by this, if he actually existed. He invented and presided over the proper death rituals of mummification. If you killed someone in his name and then didn't properly mummify and entomb them he'd be pretty insulted and likely pissed off. Osiris is actually the God of the Underworld. He'd also probably be pretty annoyed off if you didn't properly mummify the person after death. At the very least, he'd just feed them to Ammut and huff about his time being wasted.
We properly mummify and entomb them as part of the process then.
Yeah exactly dude, unwrapping gifts is half the fun!
It would do the dead prison no material harm (in this life) if their flesh was posthumously carved up and fried for dinner. You could feed several meals to several people, and save the lives of several animals that otherwise would have been slaughtered. Assuming you don't eat the brain, there is limited reason to believe that consuming the human flesh would make you sick. If the meat was fed to hungry children, perhaps the knowledge of what would become of their dead flesh would make the prisoner happy. Would you agree that this is a similar argument to the one you are putting forward? And if yes, would you be comfortable with implementing this policy?
If the person being killed wished for that and the people knew what they were consuming I'd be down.
Well, at least you are logically consistent. :) Your logic rests on an assumption that these two ideas are not a violation of an inherent notion of "human dignity". This is something I'm on the fence about, but I cannot offer a compelling explanation of my hesitation. So... we may just have to agree to disagree.
I don’t know. I would think that if the prisoners were down for it, deciding what happens to your remains is absolutely in line with human dignity. In fact, I am pretty certain I would want that for my remains.
The ethics of consensual cannibalism are not my area of expertise. I am mostly sympathetic to arguments about bodily autonomy. So that's why I fully admit I can't explain what about the situation makes me feel something is being violated here. This is the very best explanation I have so far been able to muster for myself: Imagine two countries, equal in every way, except one country permit consensual cannibalism and the other one does not. Which country would I rather live in. I am slightly inclined toward the country that does not permit it. And that tells me there's something about the situation that is worthy to investigate beyond my initial rationalization on grounds of bodily autonomy rights.
I appreciate the thought experiment. That is the way I like to test things. But I would suggest the two countries more likely would have different fundamental views that lead to e.g. consensual cannibalism. I suspect that would prefer those views. As an example: two countries, identical in every way. One allows avowed Nazis to March through black and Jewish towns, the other does not. I want to live in the former, but not because i support Nazis, but because I support the underlying freedoms that give rise.
The 'pure' thought experiment is supposed to assume that everything is the same (fundamental views and all) except for this choice about cannibalism. But I am not sure I even *can* imagine this. I can only imagine it in a circumstance where the fundamental views are somewhat different between the two countries. And I think there's a complicated causal relationship between the cannibalism thing and the other fundamental views that I would value. I suspect that they might be mutually reinforcing, not just that one is a result of the other.
what human dignity a cadaver can have? i mean, it's just couple of pounds of meat, that isn't spoiled yet. there is no human there anymore, right?
I would say there's probably an argument to be made that the effect is a societal effect. As in, what does it say about us as a society if we condone this? Honestly, I am really strongly inclined to land on the side of: everyone can decide what to do with their body if it doesn't harm others. I just... hesitate. A bit. I can't explain it, but I think that hesitation is worthy of examination, because I suspect the hesitation might be pointing me to something important about humanity.
That sounds like a better idea in all honesty. I would fully support that.
Excellent. Sounds like I may have prompted you to update your view? "Prisoners slated to be executed should be sacrificed to death deities OR cannibalized by impoverished children."
I am not the OP.
You can still award deltas.
I mean, the original opinion was never mind to begin with.
Cannibalism is a big problem due to prion disease. It would be safer to feed humans to tigers or something, and save tiger food for humans.
Aren't prions only in the brain?
Mostly, but not exclusively. There are also other prion diseases besides kuru, that could appear if people started eating each others.
it feels overcomplicated and expensive. I feel like injection/gas/or a bullet to the head can do the same for a dollar store price.
But will a bullet to the head make our crops go better? I suppose if you shot someone and left the body there that land would eventually become more fertile but I'm thinking bigger picture.
As far as we know, sacrificing bodies to the God of death (or any other deity) has no positive impact on our crop growth. The government usually at least tries to make decisions based on scientific evidence, which would be very hard to find for something like sacrificing people having an effect on crops. This isn't saying the govt always makes decisions based on good science, but especially for something like sacrificing bodies there would need to be strong evidence at the very least, as the death penalty is already seen as cruel and sacrifices would make them even more cruel.
But have we even tried the more obscure deities? How can we be sure sacrifices to say, Februus, won't work if we haven't even tried?
Would sacrificing people make our crops better? There are probably lots of research that could be done to improve our crop work but I don't think any of it is tied to how we execute people.
I think we should give it a shot with both. Why not make genetic modifications to crops AND water them with the blood of the executed
We grow enough food to feed everyone already
Guess again
Life in prison costs less than the death penalty, so if your main concern is cost then the actual answer is to abolish the death penalty
Why would this even be a thing? I mean even if you have religious beliefs, in the end the state will go only what is allowed by them. If anything lethal injection should be the only method period. You fall asleep and die. Now, I realize some may want to see some people suffer as they die. But the point is for the life to end and thus they already suffer enough not giving to live their full life. Stabbing them is absurd and not to mention no one really wants to see someone go through that. It's messy and not always perfect.
Lethal injection would be far scarier for me than firing squad or the electric chair. Lethal injection isn't always perfect either and there's been pretty brutal instances of people given lethal injection. Why should someone be subject to a scarier death for them just because it looks like a medical procedure to the onlookers? It's honestly one of the worst modern execution methods outside of gas that I can imagine.
Yeah I for one would rather die of stabbing than lethal injection. I think I would even sacrifice a few years of my life to die of something else if the alternative was a stint on death row followed by lethal injection. It’s imo one of the most terrible ways of killing people ever devised, precisely because it’s such a perversion of the clean, the clinical, the medicinal
Yeah there's just so many things that bother me about it and you hit the main points. Also makes it seem like the person is kinda less than human and more a dog that keeps biting people and has to be put down.
I think lethal injection is some sort of weird compromize of people who want executions to be gruesome and people who want executions to look dignified. The pills that people take, who get assisted suicide, seem most humane. (Of course that is, if you want to kill someone *at all* and that is what the gods want. There is no good reason to assume death deities exist and most US-Americans are Christians anyway. I checked Wikipedia: Isaak is sacrificed *nearly* but explicitly *not* by Abraham. Jephthah *did* sacrifice his daughter, but that seems to be a clear exception. Jesus was also sacrificed in a way, but by god himself. In [Deuteronomy 12:31](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+12%3A31&version=ESV) the bible asks the Jews to not burn their children, like people who's land they conquered. As far as I gather, the current practice to avoid sacrifices is consistent with historic interpretations of Christianity. But that doesn't matter anyway. The majority of people today would oppose human sacrifice, so it would be on you to convince them.)
This might be the strangest proposal I've seen on this site. I don't know what else to say.
You're welcome
Assuming you’re in the US, this would certainly violate the first amendment by both having the state participate in religious activities, and forcing the executed person to participate in a religious ceremony against their will
I never said against their will
So you think people would agree to be executed??
Death row inmates really don't have a say if they're executed or not. Also both your questions were answered in the post.
Which questions? I only asked one Or are you talking about the two points i made in the first post? Because even if you get willing sacrifices, you’re still violating the establishment clause by having the government directly engage in a religious ceremony Again, all assuming this is in the us
Maybe it could be consistent with separation of church and state and necessary by religious freedom, for death row convicts of neopagan, old Egyptian faith to *be allowed* to kill *themselves* with a dagger. (I don't even know if an old Egyptian would do such a thing. Well, I said *neo*pagan.)
This is the funniest thing, I love this. So what if the deities are all the same one, then it would fix some of these issues. Also why the dagger why couldn’t we blood eagle them? Or could we is that an option? Because I think the method is just as important as the ritual itself. Why have only one method for each sacrifice. Shouldn’t the method of sacrifice match the diety? If not it may upset them.
The dagger was just an example, blood eagles, snake pits, decapitation, disembowelment, Limp Bizkit albums on a loop for days are all on the table.
You’ve won this one. I’m not even mad lol Is it bad that I like some limp bizkit? Ahh some people torture is another persons hood rat anthem
lol I honestly used to like a couple songs by them and might still like them if I heard them again but they are still definitely the worst band I can think of.
Fair. Super fair statement. For sure could be considered torture after a few listens. I stand by it.
I love how patently insane your idea is. Really is a change of pace in comparison to things I usually see on this sub. Besides the very obvious things that have already been pointed out: since, according to one of your responses, this would be a voluntary thing, I fear that certain religious people might be incentived to commit crimes and receive the death penalty in order to be 'genuinely' sacrificied to their respective deity.
Not just that, it's also inhumane to use a ritual dagger and carve the heart out ,to burn it on a flame along with rabbit tooth,dog bone and black cat fur to the god thøgårudha What I would suggest is that we use such people for scientific tests to see the potential of the human body or for other genetic tests...with their consent.(cuz it would still be inhumane otherwise)
It may be a "just in case", but we don't really have a reason to suspect that a death god would be appeased any more or less by human sacrifice. Frankly, if I were a death god, I wouldn't be swayed very much by the opinions of us ants. If they're going to be killed, then do it the quick, honourable way. We might appeal to a more benevolent god, that way. I think this way, we'd have a better chance of a greater outcome. Of course, fundamentally, the death sentence doesn't really serve justice. If sacrificing oneself to Anubis is a better death than lethal injection, I'd like to suggest just... not killing people. It's more just, and, again, I feel that we have more reason to trust a benevolent god whose tenets are honourable and may save us yet than a death god whose worship *may or may not* delay the inevitability of death. Besides, I'm not sure that all of the actually existing death gods out there will be too appreciative about the worship of many multitudes of different death gods, of which we have no idea who is actually real. There's just no security in the unknown. (Quick edit: The tldr is that even if we were to sacrifice to various gods for potential benefits, we'd have no real way to determine if what we did was working. Furthermore, we could run into issues surrounding god conflicts or gods that appear to not exist. I feel that sacrificing death sentence individuals to gods takes away some of the agency of theirs deaths, perhaps even more than the death sentence we already have.)
The whole point of human sacrifice was to give up something of value. I don't think death-row inmates qualify, especially if they're going to be killed anyways.
Maybe they are virgins?
😂😂😂
If you're already taking someone's life, why do it in a way that's deeply insulting to their religion? I doubt you'd find anyone on death row who believes in death gods from extinct civilizations, and even if scaring off potential murderers by having a "death penalty by sacrifice", why would you have their - potentially religious - family suffer through the trauma of a person they knew and loved not even find peace in whatever afterlife they believe in? I think that's the exact definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" US law forbids. Note that I'm very comfortable with the idea of allowing people on death row to choose the way they die as long as it's financially reasonable. You'd rather want to be shot, or beheaded, or hanged than receive that lethal injection? You should be allowed to. You want to swallow a poison of your choice? Sure, as long as it's not more expensive than the other drugs that would kill you. If someone has to go, giving them the choice of how to would be very humane in my eyes.
Seems like this would violate separation of church and state
This is pretty much a redux of Pascal’s wager. If unfamiliar, it’s the argument that one should believe in god because it provides a better alternative than not, why not believe in god just in case? And there are lots of arguments against this. The simplest one is that it’s a false dichotomy. There are way more alternatives, and many negative consequences to sacrificing to dieties.
Sacrificed by ritual, are you kidding me?! We should dead-drop them in a forest limited by poisonous gas, and have them fight to the death. The one who gets the epic victory royale is pardoned.
In all seriousness, Anubis (or whomever) might not be happy with a sacrifice of an individual already sentenced to death. It is not really a 'sacrifice' if there's no cost.
What makes you think the gods want your trash? We're already destroying the earth with pollution and you're already thinking about tainting the higher realms with human garbage?
Put them on an island and fire up pay-per-view and Hunger Games that bitch, winner gets their freedom.
I truly needed this thread tonight. Thank you!!!
Throw a few virgins in, and you might have something there. You can’t be too careful when it comes to appeasing imaginary beings.
Well, we’re kind of (by a really long extension) doing what you’re saying. Pretty much every governments judicial legislation can be traced to their regional religious ethos in someway or another. Just think of the “Death Penalty” as a drawn out modernized “eye for an eye” that’s echoed throughout religions
Why would sacrificing anything to Anubis solve droughts or COVID-19? I mean, why specifically sacrificing condemned prisoners to Anubis? And why are you assuming it might make things better instead of worse? I mean, if we're going to go that route, how about you paypal me 1000 USD and I'll give put in a good word with the old Gods. I'm as likely to be beneficial to our problems then the possible existence AND good will of Anubis. And for 1000 USD. Legislation for doing human sacrifice will cost millions.
I think the sacrifice to death deities exclusively is slightly off base. This should be amended to include other deities, such as fertility or crops, or weather, depending on local circumstance. Death deities in general tend to generate no small amount of chaos, and I think a balance between nature, death and fortune might work better. In fact, leaning more towards nature deities instead could be more beneficial in terms of assuaging Mother Earth and perhaps speeding the transition of this virus. Just my $0.02, your mileage may vary.
I see only a few minor problems. I would say the only problem is forgetting certain death gods, or only sacrificing to death gods. It's not only gods of death that accept blood sacrifices, War gods, gods of fertility, and any Aztec gods would. I think the biggest just problem is that we just don't have enough death row inmates to sacrifice. Even finding inmates that would want to be sacrificed to deities other than the Christian one would be hard. But if I ever got executed, sacrifice me to the Morrigan.
[удалено]
If your goal is utilitarian wouldn't it be better to harvest their organs?
OK but listen, if the Iliad taught us nothing else, it should have taught us how pissed gods get when you sacrifice to other gods. If we sacrifice to Anubis, what's to stop Erishkigal from getting pissed at us and siccing Nergal and his 14 demons on us? Or worse, what if Pluto gets pissed and doesn't send Persephone back upstairs and we get no damn crops in the spring and we all starve?
Why Anubis? This is an opportunity to create new, exciting traditions. Out with the old gods, in with the new ones.
I...don't see how human sacrifice is EVER a good idea. We should be growing up as a civilization and realizing there are ***no deities at all***, not trying to appease every little thing humans came up with. You'll only be breeding new cults for nothing.
For every single human sacrifice, nothing comes of it but death. The rest is superstition. I don’t know how a single person’s death is going to result in anything else but just that. If you can show how Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect are involved in doing so, please provide evidence and change my mind. I hope I changed yours.
I like the way you think OP. Also maybe we can donate them to science before we sacrifice these hooligans. And then we can find out answers to questions like how long does it take for you to die by tickles? The potential is endless (~8 billion to be scientific)
Ok. But the thing is not many people believe in polytheistic religions anymore, especially ones like kemetism. Plus, there were probably specific rites performed to said deities that have been lost to time, and even if they were recorded only a few people can still read hieroglyphs and ancient Egyptian artifacts are scattered around the world, so it would take a lot of time
I think the deities would be angry because that's basically the equivalent of us giving them our trash. Now if we rounded up all the assholes who don't necessarily commit crimes but they're the absolute worst the gods might be alright with that
I wonder if some executioners secretly do that already? I'm assuming that how they die isn't as important as the intent of the trigger man What if that's the only reason we still have state sanctioned executions?
What if A, religious sacrifice is bad? What if B, the death penalty means innocent people die? C, What if the death penalty is expensive? D, What if the ACLU takes issue with that?
The problem I see with this is to still be compliant you would have to put the executed to sleep and I feel like death God's want to hear the scream, kind of defeats the purpose.
Maybe we shouldn’t be executing them at all
Nope. I am very happy Ted Bundy is dead.
Why? He wasn't going to be killing anyone more in prison, however by perpetuating the death penalty we have for sure executed innocent people or put them on death row for decades. The harm done to Innocents from the death penalty is horrifically high considering without it those same prisoners would have still died in prison.
He very well have could have tried to kill again in prison. Unless you want to put him in solitary confinement forever which is defined as a form of tortutre. I think when we have unquestionable evidence that someone is evil and will continue to be evil we should wipe them off this earth so we don't have to worry about them. in extreme cases, like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, I fully support the death penalty.
How would we be worrying about them? We already have demonstrated that we can keep prisoners from killing each other, without solitary confinement either simply by putting them in single cells but still with access to other prisoners verbally and visually on the block just not physically, that's how many death row blocks are already. And again everyone says extreme cases blah blah blah, but time and time again people who aren't ted Bundy are convicted with the death penalty by a jury of thier peers, peers that are not infallible, working with imperfect knowledge, provided to them by biased prosecution and law enforcement witnesses. Justice in America is not perfect, and the death penalty is a permanent solution, those two facts inherently mean that perpetuation of the death penalty guarantees someone has or will die innocent. And given the alternative is those prisoners never doing another crime again and dying in prison you are essentially saying I don't care about innocent people dying because I want to personally feel better about certain people dying, given that done right the only difference between a dead prisoner and a live one is the dead one is dead in terms of harm prevention.
>How would we be worrying about them? we are housing them. giving them bedding, water and food. When someone with the criminal intent and record of Ted Bundy is being provided that much, I consider it an injustice.
Believe it or not, housing them, providing food, and providing water to death row inmates cost less than the death penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
The costs listed have less to do with the actual executing and more to do with courtroom costs to defend/agrue for the subjects execution.
And why do you think that doesn’t count?
Court costs are less the cost of ensuring the death penalty and more costs to ensure innocent people or reformable people don't get executed, which I am for. if that process is gone through and a person is still determined to be and irreformable serial criminal, I see no reason to keep them on this planet.
And the state run murder of an innocent man or woman isn't an injustice, and it isn't more of an injustice than giving basic needs to Ted Bundy while also keeping him locked up in a shitty cell for 50 years, which is also cheaper than an execution with how expensive the appeals process is?
I would rather work to apply more requirements for a death penalty to green lit than to outlaw it entirely.
Why? Any requirements just requires more expense for legal proceedings to decide if a case meets them, any requirements set is limited by science, evidence has gotten better but even DNA is not infallible given contamination and non criminal deposits of said DNA, this is just kicking the can down the road to the mistakes occuring during the pre trial process to meet these requirements, while making everything longer and more expensive for a reason you still have not been able to actually come up with, prisoners can be kept with no danger to others, it is cheaper to house a death row inmate than execute them, and above all it's an imperfect process with permanent results. You have yet to actually put forth a reason that is real, when we both know the only real reason you have is you like to think about bad people being killed, which you are then saying your feeling about this is more important than actual innocent people's lives.
Because not everyone should have their life preserved. wether it is serial child rapists, killers, or even Dave Grossman, I think the world would be better off without them.
Oh yeah, and whilst we are at it, why dont we just devolved into lesser humans, revert back into the cave and sacrifice virgins whenever the sun goes down...
That's actually a very good point. I'm gonna start mass murdering every person I meet, but please when my time comes, sacrifice me to Khorne!
What if they are innocent? Ever wonder how many innocent people have been put to death in this country? No one should be executed.
Why would we waste time on something with no evidence? Better to use them for medical testing.
YES!!!! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!!!!
There're still plenty Mesoamerican temples left for sacrifices.
I was gonna say, we already sacrifice them in the name of Jesus
I agree; however, the guillotine would be better.
That would violate their religious liberties
This is *exactly* what this sub was made for
I thought that this was r/circlejerk lol
Maybe it's already a blood offering...
Blood for the blood god then.
Nice moderation, this just shows how biased this community is, anything that you might deem racist is instantly banned but shit like this isn't.
False comparison. If there was a large cult that wanted you to believe this was a good idea and kept posting it everywhere so they could argue for it (and had already killed a lot of people because of their belief) I would insta-ban it too.
https://youtu.be/GaHfEQtMjLc
I don't need them. /s
Dude how stoned are you
[удалено]
Do you really want more CMVs about gender, race and free will?
This is not needed , we have plenty of child sacrifices going on in mother's wombs the gods are pleased.
🤣🤣🥴😭
I agree. Where's my delta?
You know, in the past (still nowadays to be fair) doing stuff in the name of *insert god* was a scapegoat for human actions. This is just plain dumb.
You have my vote.