He's predictably a leftie, with an interest in Aborigines, racism and global warming. He is also a person who is strongly opposed to the death penalty, even for mass murderers:
I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.
Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion.
So is he then a tender hearted man of the left? Well, no. He may be against the death penalty "in all cases" as being "barbaric" but he has published an article calling for global warming sceptics (and the Pope) to be executed.
This is despite the fact that he recognises the uncertainty around climate science. He reasons oddly that there is a statistical formula by which we know that millions will die from global warming:
given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.
Having "proven" that a million people are going to die from global warming he feels justified in concluding that those who are sceptics on the issue of global warming should rightly get the death penalty:
So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action. But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?
Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers.
....The problem gets even more uncomfortable when you consider the broader context. Even without GW (or ignoring the small amount that has happened so far), a billion people are living in poverty right now...The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress. But political forces in the other direction are stronger. The strongest of these political forces is GW denial.
So global warming sceptics are not only bringing about the end of the world, they are also blocking the progress of the UN in solving world poverty - exactly how isn't explained by Parncutt. He seems bent on finding a group of "saboteurs" who are blocking the path of leftist progress.
Anyway, having convinced himself that there is a 100% probability that global warming sceptics will kill a million people he proposes to make this figure the cut off point of who is eligible for the death penalty. Kill 900,000 and you're safe, but 1,000,000 and you've gone too far:
I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions.
This means that the Pope and his advisers must also be executed. Why? For opposing contraception:
That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms...There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death.
Again, oddly, having proposed to end any debate on global warming by threatening to arrest and execute the sceptics, Parncutt then defends freedom of speech:
I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.
Where did all this come from? It seems that Parncutt is a supporter of a left-wing NGO called The World Future Council. Part of the programme of this council is to establish the concept of "crimes against future generations." You can see from Parncutt's article, though, the dangers inherent in this concept of "crimes against future generations".
Here in the U.S., it's more expensive to execute somebody than it is to lock them up for life. All the appeals and such cost a lot more than just housing someone.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's a cold-hearted way of looking at things, but it is another reason to get rid of the death penalty.
The death penalty is a good thing. The problem is that the modern criminal justice system as a whole is broken.
ReplyDeleteIt must be excruciatingly painful for this man to live. To hold such diametrically opposing beliefs simultaneously has obviously given rise to the oft mentioned 'cognitive dissonance'. I can only smirk at the mental gymnastics he must constantly be performing. Insane people are everywhere.
ReplyDeleteDoes he not see his own HYPOCRISY?
ReplyDeleteWow this is just amazing. It's arguments like this guys that exposing crank liberals for what they are. Increasing support for the opposition to Liberalism.
ReplyDeleteI found possibly the loop hole in his logic that lets him justify execution.
He defines execution as "racist". Supposedly those deserving of execution are all a certain raceless type of person. Sounds like liberal speak for "white people"
Parncutt's homicidal blather is a crime against past, present, and future generations.
ReplyDeleteHere in the U.S., it's more expensive to execute somebody than it is to lock them up for life. All the appeals and such cost a lot more than just housing someone.
Yeah, it's a cold-hearted way of looking at things, but it is another reason to get rid of the death penalty.
No, it is a reason to streamline the process.
In any event, I am sure the purported "cost" of executing scum excludes the gain from the deterrent value of the death penalty (and yes, executions DO deter murder).
Goes to show why the left are the greatest mass murderers in the history of humanity, the National Socialists and Communists have more blood on their hands than any other ideology since the birth of mankind.
ReplyDeleteWhen the fabled 'collective' takes precedence over real human beings the preservation of the collective becomes more important than those pesky humans. Doesnt matter that their theories may be incorrect, at least their intentions are good.
It sounds as if he is inciting murder, with a veneer of plausible deniability.
ReplyDeleteParncutt should stick to musicology. Many decisions we make today will be part of the explanation of the premature death or nonexistence of some future human beings. The decision to slip on a condom, for instance, may prevent the conception of a child, and all of the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., that that child might have had. Abortion actually kills about thirty percent of each generation, so if one is actually worried about harm to posterity, there's no need to speculate about potential killers like GW.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem with Parncutt's argument, though, is that he doesn't consider the probable body count of the policies he favors. Carbon emissions correlate very closely with wealth, so "cutting carbon emissions" means making ourselves poorer than we otherwise would have been. If we are poorer, life expectancy will decline. Either way, people will die.
Does this mean that GW advocates should be executed along with the GW deniers?
JMSmith,
ReplyDeleteGood point. The feminists who persuaded the women of my generation to defer family commitments to their late 30s also prevented the existence of a very large number of people who would otherwise have been born.
"Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%."
ReplyDeleteMany musicians are quite competent mathematically. Not this one.
UPDATE: The University of Graz has issued the following statement:
ReplyDeleteThe University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article und rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.
Helmut Konrad
Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts
Prof. Richard Parncutt has apologized:
I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which I deeply regret. I alone am entirely responsible for the content of those texts, which I hereby withdraw in their entirety. I would also like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their thoughts in emails.
In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: “I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.” I wish to confirm that this is indeed my opinion. More generally, all human beings in all places and at all times have equal rights. I have been a member and financial supporter of Amnesty International for at least 18 years, and I admire and support their universal, altruistic approach to defending human rights.
Richard Parncutt, 27-28 December 2012
I have no doubt Parncutt was forced to issue this apology by his employer under threat to his position.
ReplyDeleteMark...
"JMSmith,
Good point. The feminists who persuaded the women of my generation to defer family commitments to their late 30s also prevented the existence of a very large number of people who would otherwise have been born."
Feminists are currently running a campaign called "The 50 Million Missing" based on population difference in India. Virtually all the "fifty million" are due to sex selective abortion.
For those of you who don't live in the United States, I'd like to inform you that the U.S. criminal justice system is anything but racist. As regards to blacks, the salient characteristic of our system is that blacks who have confessed to or been convicted of crimes for which a prison sentence can lie are routinely released on probation. Often, blacks will have 4 or more felony convictions before they see the inside of a prison. Nor is it true that blacks suffer greater comparative imposition of the death penalty. For example, in Texas, renowned as a "racist" state and perhaps the hardest on crime overall, less than a third of blacks convicted of capital crimes receive the death penalty, a smaller percentage than applied to white defendants for similar capital crimes.
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake.
ReplyDeleteNice grammar. Snicker.
Here in the USA we just went through the hottest year on record. Bird migratory patterns (e.g. Canada geese) are being disrupted, I'm seeing trees bloom in November, two winters going by with barely a couple inches of snow (in my community, not the US as a whole), tropical storms are growing in intensity...
ReplyDeleteIf I were to dispute global warming, I can't just reject what the majority of scientists say, I have to disbelieve the changes going on before my own eyes.
The decision to slip on a condom, for instance, may prevent the conception of a child, and all of the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc., that that child might have had.
ReplyDeleteTo equate a conception not occurring to suffering of actual human beings is irresponsible.
. Carbon emissions correlate very closely with wealth, so "cutting carbon emissions" means making ourselves poorer than we otherwise would have been.
Correlation is not the same as causation. Cutting carbon emissions can also involve making alternative sources of energy (e.g. wind or biofuels) more efficient, and replacing fossil fuels with other sources of energy.