Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PigTenis t1_iug0t39 wrote

Sounds about right. To prove the point -> There is NOTHING that would make Richard Branson uniquely qualified to discuss death penalty. That invitation was for publicity only, he cannot bring any insight to the table apart from personal opinion on the subject. That politician knows that but seeks publicity.

658

notsocoolnow t1_iugjstv wrote

Singaporean here: it is not helped that Shanmugam, the politician in question, is a very experienced lawyer and one of the best debaters in Singapore politics. It's not immediately apparent watching his speeches, but in parliament he's extremely quick-thinking and processes information very quickly on the spot.

The scope of the debate would also have been highly disadvantageous to Branson, since Branson is a British entrepreneur used to dealing with an international environment, while the debate was on Singapore's laws which Shanmugam, being the friggin' Minister of Law, would have infinitely more experience with, not to mention having better familiarity with the Singapore government's internal statistics and social environment. Shanmugam would have been able to pull statistics, studies, and facts idiosyncratic to Singapore which Branson would have been hard pressed to refute in a live debate - because he'd need time to look up those studies and verify those statistics. And to top it all off I suspect the debate would have been moderated by a Singaporean, guiding the arguments in a seemingly-neutral fashion towards the local context ("keeping the discussion on-topic") where Shanmugam would have the overwhelming advantage.

The trump card Shanmugam always held is that a majority of Singaporeans approve of our drug laws (70% of Singaporeans are Chinese, and there is a very very very strong hatred of drugs in Chinese culture), so no matter what, he can always fall back on democratic mandate as the core of his argument.

This is like if Mike Tyson asked some random to settle their disagreement in a boxing match held in Tyson's favorite gym. The offer was highly one-sided, feels very disingenuous, and the Singapore government would spin it as a victory regardless of whether Branson accepted, refused, won or lost. There is no good outcome to Branson agreeing to the debate.

But I also think Shanmugam was doing it to raise Singapore's public profile. You'd be surprised how many stinking rich international finance-types approve of our anti-drug policies. Frat-boy multimillionaires who demand absolute sobriety from their employees while snorting lines of cocaine in their private jets.

FYI I highly disapprove of the death penalty for drug offenses, especially the specific way in which my country enforces it which utterly breaks the fundamental innocent-until-proven-guilty principle of justice.

228

DevelopmentAny543 t1_iuh3b3z wrote

Most logical thing I’ve ever read from a fellow Singaporean. Good on you. Most NUS grads I’ve met have the critical thinking ability of a merlion

52

aktivate74 t1_iuhh7fi wrote

  1. How many is "most"?

  2. How does a merlion think ?

−11

megalon43 t1_iugn44e wrote

Agreed. Did you see the paragraph 17 in the MHA statement though? It’s actually a fucking use of whataboutism with a bit of wolf warrior flavour. It’s fucking cringey.

https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/press-releases/ministry-of-home-affairs-response-to-sir-richard-branson-blog-post-on-10-october-2022

29

another-masked-hero t1_iugnyww wrote

I’m so confused by this whole document, is it common in Singapore to publish this? It looks at the beginning like it’s meant to be a demonstration but in fact there are logical fallacies and absence of proofs.

34

notsocoolnow t1_iugqd5b wrote

It happens quite a bit. The release is targeted at Singaporean readers, so there's a lot of political dogwhistles that would make no sense to a foreigner but trigger emotional responses in locals.

In the Singapore subreddit we post these and pick them apart all the time, and this isn't even the first press release for this specific event. To be fair, the recent high-profile drug execution has attracted unusually high attention to our draconian drug laws.

37

another-masked-hero t1_iugqyqe wrote

Thank you, well to give credit to your system it’s great that these documents get published. Though in this particular case it seems silly to respond to a random jet setter. But presenting the reasoning in such detail is a great approach in general and if it were not so full of fallacies I would really enjoy reading these.

5

megalon43 t1_iugpfsy wrote

Singapore used to be really clean and professional with stuff like this, but we have really gone full clown over the past decade.

Edit: adding on, Richard Branson is just a random posh fuck, not a U.K. official. I seriously don’t see the whole point of the whataboutisms attacking the U.K.

15

another-masked-hero t1_iugqq5t wrote

If done properly (i.e. correctly argumented) I think this would be awesome.

But it seems very flawed. This could be my ignorance but paragraphs 13-17 are logically flawed or suspicious (for example paragraph 12-13: accusation that there are biased in the system, then contradicting “proof” Is that the system itself cleared itself of wrongdoings). I then stopped reading because it seemed like a waste of time.

4

notsocoolnow t1_iugq3qp wrote

Course I did. Like China's version of wolf-warrior diplomacy, it's for domestic, not foreign consumption.

The Opium War reference is entirely expected, because you see in my post where I mentioned the Chinese cultural hatred of drugs? It's because of the Opium War. For any non-Singaporeans reading this, drugs are a symbol of colonial oppression and capitalist evil. Younger Singaporeans aren't quite as crazy about this, but the PAP's core voter base, senior citizens, were heavily indoctrinated into hating drugs due to their grandparents ranting about the evils of the Opium War.

To be fair, it's not an unjustified sentiment. But it's become a dogwhistle for Chinese conservatives whenever Britain (and for that matter, any of the 8 nations - Germany, Japan, Russia, Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Austria-Hungary, who conquered China so that Britain could continue to sell opium) tries to support drug legalization or for that matter any kind of humanitarian movement, as if a country's citizens are to blame for the sins of its past forever.

Scores of angry Chinese grandparents will read that and cheer for no reason other than the image of our "scrappy" government standing up to the big bad West.

20

Exotic-Amphibian-655 t1_iuhkoe0 wrote

Their source for the guy not being mentally incompetent is “facts of the case.” It’s made to look like a legal document but would be laughed out of court if filed by anyone other than a former president.

2

flaker111 t1_iugva5l wrote

as a side note i wish we (USA) could model some of the housing + healthcare policies Singapore has

11

notsocoolnow t1_iuh33qu wrote

I complain endlessly about some of our social policies, but even I admit our housing governance is amazing by the standards of any first-world city. Though COVID has recently screwed up the construction schedule and prices are skyrocketing.

6

megalon43 t1_iuh1etw wrote

Yeah I think we got one of the best housing policies in the world. Healthcare wise, I’m a bit torn. It can still get expensive.

We’d probably do better if we were lesser on the “Asian values” moralising though. Like how alcohol sales are banned after 10pm, etc.

5

BeKind_BeTheChange t1_iuhtffe wrote

But it's such an incredibly easy debate to win. There is no real position to support the death penalty until we can prove 100% that no innocent person will ever be put to death. Right now we know for a fact that innocent people have been killed.

The concept of killing people over drugs is psychotic. Anybody who supports that is a murderous sociopath.

End of debate.

7

aktivate74 t1_iuhh1k0 wrote

> The trump card Shanmugam always held is that a majority of Singaporeans approve of our drug laws (70% of Singaporeans are Chinese, and there is a very very very strong hatred of drugs in Chinese culture)

No idea where you are going with this Chinese inference. This death penalty isn't exclusive to Chinese majority Singapore. Being from Singapore you should know your neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia as well as Thailand have death penalties for drug offences and last I checked their majority aren't Chinese.

5

CrappyMSPaintPics t1_iuhc8an wrote

> and there is a very very very strong hatred of drugs in Chinese culture

Other than alcohol of course.

3

icalledthecowshome t1_iuhfqin wrote

In addition to the frat boy expat mm club, the C D suites of chinese public corps competes with them for alcohol, drug & sex rock n roll habits.

Lets talk about the amount of beautiful working women in SG ;)

1

ConcreteState t1_iuhipx2 wrote

It's easy for Americans like me to forget the recent history of drugs in China being used to topple a government.

1

Safety_Drance t1_iug4atx wrote

Hmm, interesting. This might come up as a test question in my Richard Branson does the law course.

64

pegothejerk t1_iugq3ta wrote

You really want to start with his bird law course before you jump straight into US justice program

14

Daggmaskar t1_iuh6ldy wrote

Bird law in this country is not governed by reason.

3

Randall-Flagg22 t1_iugwo7k wrote

I mean also, what's the point of debating the death penalty.

What are we gonna do next debate with the Americans whether women are really people too, should we debate with the US on Universal healthcare?

Or MAYBE the United States needs to get out of the puritannical dark ages and get with the Century ffs

WHO THE HECK STILL THINKS KILLING PEOPLE FOR MURDER IS A GOOD IDEA? THE US AND IRAN AND NORTH KOREA

−11

WealthyMarmot t1_iugyosd wrote

I'm confused at how this story set you off on the US? Branson's not American, Shanmugam's not American, Singapore isn't America, nor are America's capital punishment rates in the same league as those of the other countries you mentioned (or those of China or a couple dozen other countries).

12

tr3v1n t1_iug53ll wrote

Looks like some people are really triggered over a guy saying that killing is bad.

226

Most_Ruin_3005 t1_iug5zn3 wrote

It's saddens me, so deeply, that that's where we are as a society.

87

HaloGuy381 t1_iugbnez wrote

My father this evening proposed while talking about death penalty at dinner, to execute people in a manner mimicking to their crimes. I pointed out that by that sort of logic, then, he should be willing to foot the tax bill. He said something like “of course, better use of my money than these programs”, I countered that, say, terrorists who helped those who crashed a plane into a building, being executed that way, would be absurdly expensive, and he called -me- ridiculous. Um… what?

If you have to execute someone, make it quick and clean. It’s more affordable for the taxpayers/voters, it’s easier on those doing the executing, and it leaves the body presentable for the family to have closure. Better yet, don’t rely on the death penalty when convictions can be incorrect and catch the wrong person.

48

Most_Ruin_3005 t1_iugk8x7 wrote

I posit that we shouldn't be executing anybody, regardless of the gravity of their crimes. We cannot grow, as a society and a species, if we cannot collectively control our most base instincts for hate and violence.

23

QuintoBlanco t1_iugliqg wrote

If somebody kills somebody I love, I want the killer dead.

But my personal desire for revenge should not be how society functions.

It seems that many people cannot make that distinction.

And we can see the problem when people are being executed for drug related offences.

Or for having extramarital sex...

29

Most_Ruin_3005 t1_iugmnbv wrote

Precisely. We should strive for society to not be how we are, but how we should be. The society we are a part of should be better example of empathy and reason than than any of it's individual members might be capable of; it must be grester than the sum of it's parts.

4

busmans t1_iugej0c wrote

Eye-for-an-eye style punishment is extremely cruel, but beyond that, you don’t ever have to execute someone. It is cheaper to let them live in the system.

19

sjfiuauqadfj t1_iugh3mu wrote

the cost associated with executions in america largely comes from not doing them in a timely manner because they legally can do a lot of appeals before they actually get executed. in a perfect world where 100% of the people who are executed absolutely did it, those appeals would not be necessary and it would be very cheap to execute a prisoner

in china its also pretty cheap to execute because they arent as lenient as we are, and they also charge the family of the person being executed for the cost of the bullets

14

grovbroed t1_iugj2ff wrote

>they also charge the family of the person being executed for the cost of the bullets

Holy shit. China doesn't have free social executions?

11

kia75 t1_iugne09 wrote

You're taking your father at his word. The truth is, your father doesn't care about what he says he cares about, they're just words to justify his stances.

As you've just pointed out, your father really doesn't care about government spending. If he really cared about government spending then he would want to spend as little as possible to execute someone. Instead, he's fine with spending exorbitant money to execute someone, and he'd prefer to use the money currently going to "these programs" to be spent on execution. Your father's stances and arguments aren't congruent, and no budgetary argument (i.e. Every dollar spent on welfare have a multiplier effect on society, spending money on a starving kid so that he becomes a productive member of society results in that kid growing up and paying taxes, much higher taxes then were spent on him, while if that same kid instead receives no help and thus becomes a crook and winds up in prison, would become a drain on society and much much more of his money would be spent on that kid)

I don't know how to change your father's mind, but I do know fighting the wrong arguments will never work since it's just justification for his actual beliefs.

17

HaloGuy381 t1_iugrcqo wrote

I don’t expect to change his views. I just find it helpful to remind myself I’m not crazy, and at his core my father is kind of a bigoted, unempathetic monster, even if my mother is the more pressing concern in terms of being a shitty parent and person. When they at least feign politeness and decency so well, it’s easy to start wondering if you’re the one who’s nuts. Poking him with a simple argument that basically boils down to being willing to pay top dollar to make people suffer, even if it would involve a hit to our quality of life from the expense, is one way to do that. It’s funny he thinks I find the political BS rants from them uncomfortable for being political, when in reality I just have no desire to listen to regurgitated Fox propaganda all day. I’m decidedly political, it’s just that after finding out about the mocking behind my back after the 2016 election from them (correctly) presuming I voted Clinton, I voice my beliefs with caution.

I figured it out unambiguously with the whole incident involving the BLM protests in 2020. Hearing your own father claim Trump was being too lenient and should have firebombed them by the block, is deeply disturbing, especially after he got an AR-15 and handguns last year. (And that in spite of my chronic fight with suicidal tendencies; at least he has the sense to keep them in a safe,with the key being hard to locate being why I’m typing this and alive).

And now we’re in a town in Texas with a monument to the Confederates next to the county courthouse, where I’ve seen pro-Confederate demonstrators marching openly and with minimal opposition. Where random strangers openly discuss anti-vax conspiracy theories as if genuine fact. It’s nuts out here, and speaking freely feels hazardous.

6

Belchera t1_iuk49ef wrote

You aren’t crazy, you’re right. I’m sorry you’re going through that. Just know that the whole world hasn’t gone mad, even if it may seem that way. There is hope out there along with love and compassion.

Stick around so that those seem a little more common.

2

EmbarrassedHelp t1_iug88m2 wrote

Its crazy to see people cheering for Disneyland with a Death Penalty

35

MyVideoConverter t1_iug8u9a wrote

why so crazy? people still cheer for death penalty in America anyway.

8

sjfiuauqadfj t1_iughkhe wrote

death penalty is not used in most states, and de facto not used in a few others. a minority of states actually execute people. in comparison, singapore actually executes quite a few people for a country of its size, drug trafficking also warrants a death penalty, and perhaps more damning, the vast majority, something like 90% of singaporeans approve of it. thats far from the case in the u.s., even in the states that continue to execute people

13

Exotic-Amphibian-655 t1_iuhll9a wrote

24/50 states still execute people, and one of the states with an executive pause may have a republican governor in a few months. So your post is technically correct, but barely.

0

sl0play t1_iuglytw wrote

A lot of drug dealers and users just get executed on the street as well. So the number of people killed by the state is much higher than the judicial reports.

−1

Not_invented-Here t1_iuh094n wrote

People apparently used to enjoy a good public hanging, bring the kids have a picnic...

1

monstervet t1_iug9zxn wrote

I actually agree w Branson, most debates are pointless debacles. Unless it’s long format, moderated well, and not in front of an audience, it’s just a pointless spectacle used to entertain those that already agree w you.

90

thefugue t1_iugcctw wrote

No, there are serious academic debates that are worthwhile but the point of them is to see which of two speakers is more compelling- not which position is correct.

−1

monstervet t1_iugin5p wrote

Compelling people can be wrong. Humans are weird and easily swayed by the merest charisma, it’s a bad way to communicate merit based information, that’s my biggest problem with debates, unless my side wins.

36

Art-Zuron t1_iugdva2 wrote

I am inclined to agree. Any debate about such things is likely to result in mudslinging more than any actual debate. They aren't experts on the death penalty. Hell, there's like a 50% chance any politician you pick at random isn't an expert at anything, and may not have even graduated high school.

59

calumin t1_iugnngw wrote

The death penalty isn’t something like theoretical physics where you need a PhD to become qualified to discuss its merits. How society chooses to punish criminals is a subject that all citizens of that society should feel qualified to have a voice.

The issue to me is more whether this subject is one that should be bound by local laws, or whether there is some more universal law at play. Branson is arguing the latter, but I have a hard time seeing how that would play well in a televised debate.

23

Brainsonastick t1_iugrq24 wrote

There’s a tendency among laypeople to think philosophy is simple because they have their philosophy and opinions. It’s true of lots of fields but philosophy seems to get it worse than most.

Sure, anyone can discuss the merits but to be qualified to debate it in a way that other people could learn from listening, you need some kind of exceptional skill and knowledge. Like a degree in philosophy specializing in moral philosophy. Or a specialty in the ethics of criminal Justice. Or maybe research experience on the death penalty’s effectiveness as a deterrent (though that last one would be a more limited scope discussion).

15

Art-Zuron t1_iuhtezv wrote

This is pretty much what I was getting at. You can believe whatever you want, but, if you are discussing or debating its merits, you have to be able to prove that your opinion is valid. That's one of the bases of philosophy. And you have to do it without logical fallacy.

The problem is that, for a significant part if the US, their capacity to utilize logic is faulty. All they have is fallacies. They rely on demagogues and grifters to do it badly for them. It's because they don't care about what's true, which makes them directly opposed to philosophy, they care about winning or being right, even if they are blatantly wrong. If critical thinking helped them, they wouldn't try so hard to expel it from school, politics, and everyday society.

6

l0c0dantes t1_iuhm3ip wrote

Well, its not that complicated of a question: Should the country be allowed to kill a person as punishment for crimes. You can absolutely over complicate it if you want, and even end up turning it into a entirely different question if you're really good, but its very much a thing where there isn't a right or wrong answer.

You might logic yourself into believing that there is a definitive "correct" answer, but then you'll just be annoyed when people don't inherently agree with you.

−2

Art-Zuron t1_iuhucfg wrote

The point of debates is to provide reasoning for your own side and against the other. You have to make an argument for why you are more right. And you need to do that right for your argument to be valid.

The issue is that a significant portion of the country, and one of the two major political parties, doesn't debate in good faith. They are illogical, fallacious, and outright lying pretty much all the time. There is no way to debate fairly with them, because their base is a cult. They don't care about logic or critical thinking or truth. They care about winning and being "right" even if it means being wrong. They are contrarians.

If, during debates, every time someone makes a logical fallacy, the buzzer went off, they'd barely get to talk. Because that's all they've got, fallacies. They barely even have a platform beyond oppression.

2

Bending_toast t1_iugrsup wrote

In an open letter posted on his blog on Monday (Oct 31), Mr Branson said that such a debate “reduces nuanced discourse to soundbites, turns serious debate into spectacle” and urged the ministry to engage stakeholders such as advocates, lawyers and journalists. Good god if everyone adopted this mentality it’d kill most of the media these days.

33

Proton189 t1_iugbngr wrote

Singapore is a conservative hell hole

27

MagnificentBastard0 t1_iug2ai7 wrote

It’s not the “TV format”, it’s the people.

16

UrbanJungleDruid t1_iug6j8r wrote

But the TV format encourages and empowers those people.

23

MagnificentBastard0 t1_iug6p7h wrote

And which format discourages that?

3

nikolai_470000 t1_iug7w9r wrote

An open written correspondence between the two parties on the subject, or a published transcript of a private call, but no one would pay any fucking attention to those things

17

booga_booga_partyguy t1_iuil4nl wrote

To be fair, you can have televised debates that can be qualitative. But the problem with formal, structured debates are that they are boring, people are literally forced to debate points, are penalised and/or boot for making personal attacks, and so on.

Point is, formal debates don't make for good TV either.

3

nikolai_470000 t1_iuiw144 wrote

Agreed. I also think that debate has evolved to the point where it tends to be solely focused on winning arguments. It has always had a bit of that, but it also used to serve as the most effective way to exchange ideas and develop new perspectives.

The kind of debate where one person is genuinely open to changing their mind (which often leads to the most productive discourse, although not necessarily the most entertaining depending on who you ask) just isn’t suited for politicians who oppose one another and are vying for the same thing. That could be a certain office, or simply power itself, or just attention.

Now the point of political debate is mostly to make your opponents views look less appealing, usually by winning the argument, mostly in very subjective ways. Even when it’s supposed to be casual, people just can’t let go of the polity of it all because of politicized everything has become. Productive discourse can still happen, but truly novel ideas that appeal strongly to both sides of an issue seem to come few and far between.

1

MagnificentBastard0 t1_iuk3s98 wrote

So no practical format that might be employed to any useful effect.

So the problem isn’t TV-specific but with the nature of the people involved.

Which was the point I was leading to.

2

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iugi6fu wrote

What’s to debate? If we can convict people with flawless decisions than fine but otherwise we will end up executing innocent people. If you’re okay with that than let us execute you first. No? Okay then, no capital punishment. It’s pretty simple.

16

CryonautX t1_iuh3wc2 wrote

I don't want to be imprisoned for any amount of time either. So I guess we should just not have prison sentences?

Wrongful persecution is a separate problem of a legal system. Noone should be wrongfully convicted, period. Not just noone should be wrongfully convicted for the death penalty.

−4

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iuh8nai wrote

Yes however we are literally discussing the death penalty.

6

[deleted] t1_iuio6g3 wrote

[removed]

2

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iuiomr4 wrote

I left out the part about the difference between execution and imprisonment is that one is not reversible. Okay, you can choose the lightest version of imprisonment or the lightest version of execution. I’ll go to prison for a month but someone in favor of execution won’t choose to be executed. If you think my logic is flawed than what’s your logic for capital punishment?

1

[deleted] t1_iugu4wk wrote

[removed]

−7

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iugw38i wrote

Ah no. Imprisonment can be reversed. Execution cannot. I forgot to mention that part. Is that a “nuance” to you?

16

[deleted] t1_iugxtxw wrote

[removed]

−3

Pure-Produce-2428 t1_iuh8z2n wrote

Those years can’t be given back but nothing is as irreversible as death. Plus we have an alternative to capital punishment that is the same to people on the outside, mostly: life in prison without parole. We don’t execute that many people and the cost per person ends up being more when you take into account litigation etc (I need to look that up to be sure). I believe the government should be in the business of helping people but not the business of killing people. Along with a lack of an effective healthcare system we are also an outlier in terms of capital punishment.

6

[deleted] t1_iuiwl1l wrote

[removed]

1

JonskMusic t1_iuiyav5 wrote

that sometimes involves killing people. <-- this isn't a given, just an opinion.

I suggest that due to the infallibility of humans and the reversible nature of execution we should utilize life in prison without parole as a substitute. This stops us from executing innocent people, which happens more than it should (my opinion), resolves any moral implications and allows for legal appeals which are meaningless after execution. We also know that capital punishment isn't a deterrent to crime. And it isn't a cost saving vs life sentence.

The benefit of capital punishment might be the relief that family members of victims feel, which also isn't as clear cut. That leaves the negative which is that we accidentally murder people sometimes. Why would we choose to accidentally murder people so that others could feel slightly better, maybe, about their loved ones being murdered, particularly when there is an alternative that protects society and doesn't involve extra murders.

- obviously this site is biased, but this isn't controversial information.
• https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
• https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence

1

dkobod t1_iuh798n wrote

You’re actually just what-abouting and taking up valuable energy from more productive discussions. Clearly, execution is different in that it is a final decision.

4

booga_booga_partyguy t1_iuikvqy wrote

And...?

Are you seriously trying to argue that you can bring an executed person back to life? Or are you arguing someone wrongfully imprisoned for life cannot never be released if their conviction was found to be wrong?

1

[deleted] t1_iuiltd7 wrote

[removed]

1

booga_booga_partyguy t1_iuiod5b wrote

They can still live the remainder of their lives though. The only way you can think this is an equitable argument is if you think you can bring a dead person back to life. Do you actually think that?

And no, there really isn't any room for debate. The death penalty as a form of punishment was proven decades ago to be bullshit precisely because there is no way to make up for executing someone who didn't deserve it, and is a tool that can easily be abused by corrupt people.

Again, if there was room for debate, then why doesn't good ol' Shanmugum have the courage to challenge actual legal experts to a debate instead of a businessman who isn't a subject matter expert on the topic? We both know why - it's because Shanmugum knows other legal experts who aren't beholden to him would hand his ass back to him on a platter if he tries to seriously argue that the death penalty is still a good thing.

2

PanzerSoul t1_iugttxt wrote

>"We have studied the failed war on drugs for the last 15 years"

Except that it was successful in Singapore

11

didsomebodysaymyname t1_iugvm3n wrote

I'd just keep bringing up alcohol (which they allow)

It is addictive and kills. Just bash them over the head that such a dangerous drug is legal there for anyone over 18, but they kill you for bringing too much pot in.

7

kstinfo t1_iuh0iqr wrote

Criminal justice should be about how good a society can be, not about how bad individuals can be.

4

shadowromantic t1_iuhc3au wrote

TV is mostly about entertainment, not insight

4

SalsaBueno t1_iuhvnfv wrote

Why the fuck is Richard Branson debating the death penalty? Did he get elected to something?

3

[deleted] t1_iuip84j wrote

[removed]

1

SalsaBueno t1_iuipkpf wrote

I’m not questioning his activism (although I absolutely am because he’s another soulless billionaire that only gives a fuck when it benefits him) I was literally wondering why the fuck a private citizen was being invited to debate a legal issue in a foreign country. It made no sense.

1

[deleted] t1_iug9xft wrote

[deleted]

2

dhurane t1_iugkbs5 wrote

Branson criticized Singapore's death penalty for drug offences. Their minister took offence and challenged him to a debate. Branson rightfully declines.

9

GF1386 t1_iuh90z2 wrote

Agreed. Ted Cruz wins every debate. That doesn’t make him Solomon.

2

bewarethetreebadger t1_iuis9gi wrote

I think the bigger question is, who gives a fuck what Richard Branson thinks?

2

afedbeats t1_iuj4bi8 wrote

If the two people debating aren't experts in the particular field being discussed, debates are literally just pseudo-intellectual sparring matches between two people who stand ideologically opposed, usually for some sort of ulterior gain.

I did competitive debate in HS and coached it after. It's literally just a popularity contest with a bit of persuasion. I cannot tell you the amount of reasons we "lost" because the other team was dressed better or had more interesting ideas, even if they were flat out wrong or had literally no evidentiary basis.

Demanding that a debate be televised or recorded is overwhelmingly a ploy by that person to look better at the opponent's expense. Most people don't learn much nor change their position based on a debate.

It's the 40/40/20 rule. 40% of each side of a debate audience has already chosen one person to be superior, regardless of what actually happens in the debate. They are simply looking for W's or points that make their guy look better in comparison. Debates for politics are fighting for that 20% who could be convinced by so much as a single slip-up or joke, so for most it's a fruitless endeavor with a lot of preparation and more risk of fucking up than succeeding.

2

ZootedFlaybish t1_iuhhkb0 wrote

There is no ‘serious debate’ - there is only power and farce.

1

JoeDiBango t1_iuit9ik wrote

Why would anyone want to hear Richard Branson bloviate on any topic?

1

ashlee837 t1_iugvx7g wrote

Richard Branson I heard of. Who the hell is Shanmugam? Sounds like a nobody trying to become popular.

0

CryonautX t1_iuh4j8s wrote

Minister of law and Minister of Home affairs in Singapore. You know, the guy with the biggest stake on the subject matter "Death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore"

3

steavoh t1_iugkz3q wrote

I hope someday Singapore’s economic model becomes obsolete as business can be conducted elsewhere, cutting out the middleman.

Fuck that place.

−1

Logical-Use-8657 t1_iuhyt40 wrote

He's too busy buying off the NHS to have debates.

−1

marcopaulodirect t1_iui9lh8 wrote

Dyslexia kicked in. Thought it said “deathbate”

−1

MississippiJoel t1_iug0ow8 wrote

Says the man who is seen wearing a space jumpsuit in most photos.

−10

Fraun_Pollen t1_iug2rmd wrote

Hey man, If you find an outfit you’re comfortable in and have enough power and wealth that your spouse won’t leave you over it, all power to you.

34

[deleted] t1_iug0wv8 wrote

[removed]

−28

NinjaLanternShark t1_iug5n02 wrote

Branson's not "talking smack" he's advocating for the abolishment of the death penalty. He's a celebrity raising awareness of an issue he cares about.

43

Sweatsock_Pimp t1_iug9kzs wrote

Oh. He’s against the death penalty? I just assumed he’d be in favor of it.

Kind of refreshing.

3

chronoistriggered OP t1_iug6oqf wrote

lol if his genuine intention is to raise awareness as u claim, then wouldn't it be a great opportunity to debate on live TV.

His audience will be Singaporean that gets to vote and directly lobby their MPs.

&#x200B;

It's obvious that RB doesn't believe he can convince anyone that really matters

−36

Grogosh t1_iug7xon wrote

What is there to convince? Either you know killing is wrong or you are some kind of immature edge lord who revels in death.

15

EmbarrassedHelp t1_iug7vj4 wrote

Singapore is a civilian dictatorship though, so its not like the citizens have a chance at influencing the leadership's opinion on the death penalty.

13

chronoistriggered OP t1_iug8bfc wrote

total BS from typical ignorant redditor who thinks they know everything about every place on earth. Singapore just repealed buttsex law because of increased pressure from citizens.

Even in a dictatorship/monarchy, citizens can change things if they are really motivated. Ever heard of the French Revolution.

−18

EmbarrassedHelp t1_iug9c11 wrote

> Singapore just repealed buttsex law because of increased pressure from citizens.

Well we should consider welcoming them to the 21st century then for doing the bare minimum at a snail's pace.

> Even in a dictatorship/monarchy, citizens can change things if they are really motivated. Ever heard of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution involved purging society of royalty and those supporting it. Singapore isn't going to do that anytime soon.

8

chronoistriggered OP t1_iug9me1 wrote

lol just how many different ways do u need to change the yardsticks.

this is the absurd quality of reddit discussions

−5

EmbarrassedHelp t1_iugamas wrote

> lol just how many different ways do u need to change the yardsticks.

> this is the absurd quality of reddit discussions

Absurdity? You literally implied that Singapore should just brutally slaughter everyone in government.

I said that Singapore was behind a good portion of the world on the issue of making same-sex sexual activity legal, after you tried to use it as example of Singapore's system working effectively.

8

chronoistriggered OP t1_iugb8b5 wrote

i literally imply nothing of that sort.

&#x200B;

If u can read and comprehend at elementary level, i'm ridiculing RB for not having the balls to debate in a topic he apparently strongly believes in.

&#x200B;

But as usual, redditors read and imagine whatever the heck they want.

0

Malibu8888 t1_iuggdgb wrote

Shanmugam is an arrogant ignorant outdated politician with an unquenchable thirst for state sanctioned murder. He loves it!

Why should anyone, with global brand recognition, debate this prick, who is unknown worldwide? By doing so, Branson would have given this psycho maniac a global platform to spew his garbage.

Good move, Branson! Ego check for Shan!

6

Darkmortal10 t1_iug9e80 wrote

List 3 times you've changed your opinion on something your strongly believe in while watching a debate

5

yankinfl t1_iug43n1 wrote

Translation: Little Dickie knows he will be made to look like more of an asshole than he already does, wimps out with a bullshit excuse.

−73

American_Stereotypes t1_iugbvgr wrote

He's an asshole for opposing the death penalty for drug offenses?

I think I'd be horrified to see your idea of a good man, in that case.

33

usefully_useless t1_iugb1rz wrote

Branson will look like more of an asshole for… opposing the death penalty?

28

Thomb t1_iug6uyq wrote

Turns serious debate into a spectacle

17

Darkmortal10 t1_iug9l7o wrote

List 3 times you've changed your opinion on something your strongly believe in while watching a debate

11

booga_booga_partyguy t1_iuilnny wrote

So you think the Singapore law minister, who wants to debate a British business and is not an expert on Singapore law, instead of another actual legal expert on things like the death penalty, is the brave one here?

Do you think the Singapore law minister would be a coward if he declined to participate in a debate with Branson on travel and tourism, space exploration, or telecom?

1