| | | | |
--snip--
|
|
Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for
thievery?
|
Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with
real life situations. Vigilantism isnt ideal, because there isnt a
standard-- that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when the
law fails to bring about justice. Put it this way: I am more sympathetic to
a murderer who kills in cold blood the murderer of his young daughter who has
gotten off in a court of law on some technicality.
|
Id be more sympathetic too, but theyre still a murderer. What about someone
who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to
escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but Im
pretty sympathetic to their plight. Liberal thinking allows them to get off in
Court on occassions whereas Conservative thinking would send them to the chair.
|
As for theives: no death penalty; the cutting off of their hands will
suffice;-)
|
Do you really think its up to the homeowner to decide that the person
stealing their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using
violence, and should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like
presentience to me which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone else
you are a murderer and you are evil. I dont care if that person has just
stolen your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament said an
eye for an eye rather than a life for a stereo.
|
I wouldnt advocate the intentional attempt to kill a fleeing thief.
|
If you shoot at someone and they die you are at best a manslaughterer and at
worst a murderer. The likely effect of shooting at someone is that they will be
seriously injured. Thats immoral in my books.
Incidentally I apply the same rule to people who drive dangerously and kill
someone but society as a whole doesnt punish that sort of offense anywhere near
as heavily as I think it should. What do you think about the guy who kills a
young child because he was speeding just 10mph above the speed limit? I call
him a manslaughterer.
|
How do you feel about shootinging with the intent to wound?
|
I have minimal problem with that provided its reasonable force.
|
Guns are all we
really have now to stop thieves, and they are crude and dont do what we
necessarily what them to do, but Im sure that soon we will have weapons
which will be able to incapacitate without lethal force. I believe a citizen
has every right to zap a fleeing thief.
|
Zapping is fine by me. So long as youre not permanently maiming someone for a
property crime Im happy enough to have them hurt a bit.
--snip--
|
|
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a
genuine regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral?
|
They can think whatever they want! I dont care.
|
Damn typos.
|
|
What about
those who do what a lot of people consider immoral, what about those who do
what a lot of people think is moral and a larger number of people thinks is
immoral?
|
If those actions infringe on the rights of others, then they should be
stopped. It doesnt matter how many people believe anything. If freedoms are
abridged, then that is when action needs to occur (and what governments are
for).
JOHN
|
But not all illegal/immoral things infringe anyone elses rights. Some
examples of activities that dont harm anyone and yet are banned are narcotics
use, bigamy and assisted suicide. Does that mean society at large through the
goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
|
--snip--
|
|
Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for
thievery?
|
Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with
real life situations. Vigilantism isnt ideal, because there isnt a
standard-- that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when
the law fails to bring about justice. Put it this way: I am more
sympathetic to a murderer who kills in cold blood the murderer of his young
daughter who has gotten off in a court of law on some technicality.
|
Id be more sympathetic too, but theyre still a murderer.
|
Agreed. There are still consequences for actions.
|
What about someone
who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to
escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but Im
pretty sympathetic to their plight. Liberal thinking allows them to get off
in Court on occassions whereas Conservative thinking would send them to the
chair.
|
Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives
who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example.
|
|
As for theives: no death penalty; the cutting off of their hands will
suffice;-)
|
Do you really think its up to the homeowner to decide that the person
stealing their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using
violence, and should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like
presentience to me which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone
else you are a murderer and you are evil. I dont care if that person has
just stolen your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament said
an eye for an eye rather than a life for a stereo.
|
I wouldnt advocate the intentional attempt to kill a fleeing thief.
|
If you shoot at someone and they die you are at best a manslaughterer and at
worst a murderer. The likely effect of shooting at someone is that they will
be seriously injured. Thats immoral in my books.
|
Well, you are certainly taking a risk by shooting someone to merely injure them.
The law would assume that you are trying to kill them AFAIK. Now, I assume your
statement here is still talking about a fleeing thief, and not an intruder in
your home where you feel your familys safety is in jeopardy, nes pas?
|
Incidentally I apply the same rule to people who drive dangerously and kill
someone but society as a whole doesnt punish that sort of offense anywhere
near as heavily as I think it should. What do you think about the guy who
kills a young child because he was speeding just 10mph above the speed
limit? I call him a manslaughterer.
|
I concur.
|
|
How do you feel about shootinging with the intent to wound?
|
I have minimal problem with that provided its reasonable force.
|
Guns are all we
really have now to stop thieves, and they are crude and dont do what we
necessarily what them to do, but Im sure that soon we will have weapons
which will be able to incapacitate without lethal force. I believe a
citizen has every right to zap a fleeing thief.
|
Zapping is fine by me. So long as youre not permanently maiming someone for
a property crime Im happy enough to have them hurt a bit.
|
I think we are pretty close in POV on this issue, Tim.
|
--snip--
|
|
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a
genuine regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral?
|
They can think whatever they want! I dont care.
|
Damn typos.
|
No, I wasnt commenting on your typo. I really meant it. People can think
whatever they want. Im concerned about what they do.
|
|
|
What about
those who do what a lot of people consider immoral, what about those who do
what a lot of people think is moral and a larger number of people thinks is
immoral?
|
If those actions infringe on the rights of others, then they should be
stopped. It doesnt matter how many people believe anything. If freedoms
are abridged, then that is when action needs to occur (and what governments
are for).
JOHN
|
But not all illegal/immoral things infringe anyone elses rights. Some
examples of activities that dont harm anyone and yet are banned are
narcotics use,
|
Disagree. Junkies are a terrible burden on society, not to mention the
destruction they reak in the lives of their families. I understand that some
people are able to use drugs recreationally, but the vast majority of drug users
completely lose control and become addicts, and they all but render that point
mute.
I would argue against bigamy for legal reasons, not moral ones. It is a clear
violation of the marriage contract. As for polygamy; Im not against the
concept per se, I just dont think it is a good idea for my society.
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock themselves
out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
Does that mean society at large
through the goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?
|
Societal constructs are the result of the sensibilities of its citizens. In our
society, we ban polygamy. Other countries allow it. Fine. Since we are a free
society, one can either leave the country, or work to change the society to
ones own liking.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --snip--
|
|
What about someone
who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to
escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but Im
pretty sympathetic to their plight. Liberal thinking allows them to get off
in Court on occassions whereas Conservative thinking would send them to the
chair.
|
Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives
who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example.
|
Yes I dont doubt it but I think that the basic Conservative position (as
opposed to the position of Conservatives) is against it. It becomes an
exception to the rule rather than part of a grey spread.
|
|
|
As for theives: no death penalty; the cutting off of their hands will
suffice;-)
|
Do you really think its up to the homeowner to decide that the person
stealing their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using
violence, and should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like
presentience to me which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone
else you are a murderer and you are evil. I dont care if that person
has just stolen your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament
said an eye for an eye rather than a life for a stereo.
|
I wouldnt advocate the intentional attempt to kill a fleeing thief.
|
If you shoot at someone and they die you are at best a manslaughterer and at
worst a murderer. The likely effect of shooting at someone is that they will
be seriously injured. Thats immoral in my books.
|
Well, you are certainly taking a risk by shooting someone to merely injure
them. The law would assume that you are trying to kill them AFAIK. Now, I
assume your statement here is still talking about a fleeing thief, and not an
intruder in your home where you feel your familys safety is in jeopardy, nes
pas?
|
Yes. Im still talking about the thief rather than the extremely rare attacker.
|
|
|
|
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a
genuine regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral?
|
They can think whatever they want! I dont care.
|
Damn typos.
|
No, I wasnt commenting on your typo. I really meant it. People can think
whatever they want. Im concerned about what they do.
|
On that I think I share your view although Im probably more accepting of
mitigating circumstances when they can drastically alter a persons thinking.
|
|
But not all illegal/immoral things infringe anyone elses rights. Some
examples of activities that dont harm anyone and yet are banned are
narcotics use,
|
Disagree. Junkies are a terrible burden on society, not to mention the
destruction they reak in the lives of their families. I understand that some
people are able to use drugs recreationally, but the vast majority of drug
users completely lose control and become addicts, and they all but render
that point mute.
|
The vast majority of illegal narcotics users dont cause much harm to society
(and certainly no more than users of legal narcotics such as alcohol). Heroin
and crack cocaine (being the two with the really, really high danger levels)
account for a very small portion of total illegal narcotics use. On the whole it
seems to be a combination of political inertia and misinformation that keep any
sort of change from happening rather than good evidence.
|
I would argue against bigamy for legal reasons, not moral ones. It is a
clear violation of the marriage contract. As for polygamy; Im not against
the concept per se, I just dont think it is a good idea for my society.
|
But the legal contract is there to reinforce a social more rather than for any
harm reduction so its restriction is thus an arbitrart Governmental restriction
on peoples rights.
|
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock
themselves out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
The people most in need of assisted suicide are unable to do so themselves which
is why they need assistance. The Governement is restricting their right to kill
themselves.
It seems to me that its an immoral society which wont let a terminally ill
elderly person whose life is spent in great pain to end that pain at the expense
of a few months life.
|
|
Does that mean society at large
through the goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?
|
Societal constructs are the result of the sensibilities of its citizens. In
our society, we ban polygamy. Other countries allow it. Fine. Since we are
a free society, one can either leave the country, or work to change the
society to ones own liking.
JOHN
|
As Im sure you know movement of people is not really much of an option in the
current world climate so I dont consider that a vaild option (if people could
move as freely as money I would but they cant). Yes they can work to change the
system but Im not questioning whether or not the system should be changed, but
whether the current system is moral.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
|
The vast majority of illegal narcotics users dont cause much harm to society
(and certainly no more than users of legal narcotics such as alcohol). Heroin
and crack cocaine (being the two with the really, really high danger levels)
account for a very small portion of total illegal narcotics use. On the whole
it seems to be a combination of political inertia and misinformation that
keep any sort of change from happening rather than good evidence.
|
Id say that depends on the society. In the US there is a problem with people
mugging Oxycontin(sp?)-dependant people for their prescriptions and mainlining
it. It is perhaps more expensive than heroin, and anyone who actually needs it
to control crippling pain is automatically at risk for extreme violence.
Oh, and cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic, and alcohol is a depressant.
|
The people most in need of assisted suicide are unable to do so themselves
which is why they need assistance. The Governement is restricting their right
to kill themselves.
|
Youre assuming that suicide is legal to begin with. In many parts of the US,
it is patently illegal to take any life, even your own. In days of old, it was
even a capital offense in some areas. Yes, that means that if you try to kill
yourself, fail, and change your mind about any further attempts...the legal
system could effectively force it on you if/when they ever found out. Makes no
sense at all, which is why most, if not all, of these states have struck that
punishment from the books (though not necessarily the illegality of the act
itself).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
|
The vast majority of illegal narcotics users dont cause much harm to
society (and certainly no more than users of legal narcotics such as
alcohol). Heroin and crack cocaine (being the two with the really, really
high danger levels) account for a very small portion of total illegal
narcotics use. On the whole it seems to be a combination of political
inertia and misinformation that keep any sort of change from happening
rather than good evidence.
|
Id say that depends on the society. In the US there is a problem with
people mugging Oxycontin(sp?)-dependant people for their prescriptions and
mainlining it. It is perhaps more expensive than heroin, and anyone who
actually needs it to control crippling pain is automatically at risk for
extreme violence.
|
I dug up some statistics (page
288- of the PDF) and it would appear that in the US just under one third of drug
users are using something other than marijuana. So when talking about high-risk
people (those whose actions are a danger to someone other than themself) were
looking at a fraction of a third, which is a small portion. In most other
developed countries Ive seen statistics for the percentage of drug users using
something other than marijuana is even lower.
And to anticipate any arguments that marijuana is harmful (I have no doubts that
it is) I did say no more than users of legal narcotics. Yes marijuana has its
problems but Im yet to see anything from a reputable source suggestion theyre
in any way worse than those associated with tobacco or alcohol.
I should also note that crime associated with drug use is not neccessarily a
result of the drug use so much as a result of its illegal nature. If one could
get a recreational prescription to Oxycontin one wouldnt need to mug anyone. It
also strikes me as a very inefficient way of an addict to get a hold of their
drugs. Robbing a pharmacy would have much better yields. Are you sure its
really that common or is it just overreported because of the unpleasantess?
That means that most governments are making it illegal for people to use
something they enjoy for no good reason. Furthermore by making things illegal
(as opposed to hard to get, for example) they are helping to increase robbery
and property crime. Is this the action of a moral government and/or legal
system?
|
Oh, and cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic, and alcohol is a depressant.
|
Yes. I double checked and sure enough you are right. The wikipedia article does
state, however, that illegal narcotic is commonly used by paypersons to refer
to illegal drugs in general, including by law enforcement.
|
|
The people most in need of assisted suicide are unable to do so themselves
which is why they need assistance. The Governement is restricting their
right to kill themselves.
|
Youre assuming that suicide is legal to begin with. In many parts of the
US, it is patently illegal to take any life, even your own. In days of old,
it was even a capital offense in some areas. Yes, that means that if you try
to kill yourself, fail, and change your mind about any further attempts...the
legal system could effectively force it on you if/when they ever found out.
Makes no sense at all, which is why most, if not all, of these states have
struck that punishment from the books (though not necessarily the illegality
of the act itself).
|
Well that takes immorality of law to a whole new level. Id heard rumours about
that sort of law in the US but was never sure if it was an urban myth or not.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
|
I dug up some statistics (page
288- of the PDF) and it would appear that in the US just under one third of
drug users are using something other than marijuana. So when talking about
high-risk people (those whose actions are a danger to someone other than
themself) were looking at a fraction of a third, which is a small portion.
In most other developed countries Ive seen statistics for the percentage of
drug users using something other than marijuana is even lower.
|
Yeah, but if the percentage of people who posed an immediate risk to people
other than themselves was significantly higher, there would be more political
capital to do something about it. Once the public perceives a lack of risk to
themselves, they are less thrilled about spending lots of money to combat a
situation that they see as mostly resolved.
|
And to anticipate any arguments that marijuana is harmful (I have no doubts
that it is) I did say no more than users of legal narcotics. Yes marijuana
has its problems but Im yet to see anything from a reputable source
suggestion theyre in any way worse than those associated with tobacco or
alcohol.
|
The only hard statistic Ive seen so far is that one joint = one beer in terms
of how impaired it makes you as a driver. I would have figured itd be higher
than that, as most people that Ive witnessed dont show any signs of impairment
from a single beer.
|
I should also note that crime associated with drug use is not neccessarily a
result of the drug use so much as a result of its illegal nature. If one
could get a recreational prescription to Oxycontin one wouldnt need to mug
anyone. It also strikes me as a very inefficient way of an addict to get a
hold of their drugs. Robbing a pharmacy would have much better yields. Are
you sure its really that common or is it just overreported because of the
unpleasantess?
|
Oxycontin is a known high-risk drug, so pharmacies probably take extra measures
to ensure that it does not get stolen from them (including, I would assume, not
storing it in quantity, but probably just getting in enough to fill known
upcoming prescriptions), though Im sure it still happens. This drives the
street price up (IIRC, the expose I watched on it suggested that a single pill
can fetch $600-1000 each). The people who mug prescription users for the
pills arent doing it so much for personal use as they are to harvest a supply
to sell on the black market. One individual they cited has her husband drive in
a separate car behind her, idling in the parking lot while she goes in to get
her prescription, and waiting with cel phone ready in case anyone does anything
when shes returning to her car. Then he follows her home to make sure shes
not being tailed by anyone. All this just to get her a legal supply of pills
that prevent her from being in excruciating pain.
The thing is, Oxycontin use is very rare, and once youve been mugged once for
it, Im sure theres plenty of incentive to adjust your routine to prevent a
second occurance. I have personally only met one person who positively
identified him/herself as a prescription user, and have never heard of any
muggings through regular news channels.
|
That means that most governments are making it illegal for people to use
something they enjoy for no good reason. Furthermore by making things illegal
(as opposed to hard to get, for example) they are helping to increase robbery
and property crime. Is this the action of a moral government and/or legal
system?
|
No good reason is highly debatable. As far as I know, marijuana use has a low
incidence of related crimes (its in plentiful supply, many people grow their
own crop for personal use, its not horribly expensive, and it has low enough
withdrawal symptoms that users arent constantly chasing after the next hit).
Stuff like Oxycontin is an exponential-use drug. The more you use it, the more
you need to use it, and withdrawal is reportedly bad to experience (theres a
Texan clinic that avoids that problem by inducing a coma until the drug has
cleared out of your system, since its a physical addiction and the cravings
will mostly go away once youre clean). Therefore, even if it were legal and in
plentiful supply, youd eventually have people who couldnt go to work because
they wouldnt be able to wait more than a couple of hours before taking another
massive hit. Also, all you have to do is ask your local ER about drug overdose
cases to see good reason. Marijuana is supposed to be no worse than alcohol,
but one is illegal and the other isnt. I suspect part of that is the fact that
marijuana use was more contained when it was outlawed, whereas we have
Prohibition to show how well it worked for alcohol. And tobacco was a staple
industry of early America, which makes it that much harder to illegalize (though
some inroads have been made by way of making it illegal in restaurants, bars,
and public buildings in most States). Between those three, its probably
difficult, but not impossible, to overdose. Once you get beyond them,
however...
|
Yes. I double checked and sure enough you are right. The wikipedia article
does state, however, that illegal narcotic is commonly used by paypersons
to refer to illegal drugs in general, including by law enforcement.
|
Yes, which is why many law enforcement agencies will have a narcotics
devision. And this is why the medical profession prefers the less easily
confused term opiates, since all true narcotics are apparently opium
derivatives or produce similar results.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
|
In many parts of the
US, it is patently illegal to take any life, even your own. In days of old,
it was even a capital offense in some areas. Yes, that means that if you try
to kill yourself, fail, and change your mind about any further attempts...the
legal system could effectively force it on you if/when they ever found out.
|
Youre correct, but thats kind of a dumb law. Theres a ton of things that you
can do to yourself that you cant do to others without consent, among which
tattooing and masturbation are perhaps two of the most obvious examples. Why
suicide should be afforded this mystical thou shalt not status makes no sense
to me, assuming that the individual is of sound mental capacity, of course.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
Youre correct, but thats kind of a dumb law. Theres a ton of things that
you can do to yourself that you cant do to others without consent, among
which tattooing and masturbation are perhaps two of the most obvious
examples. Why suicide should be afforded this mystical thou shalt not
status makes no sense to me, assuming that the individual is of sound mental
capacity, of course.
|
The Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States government says that its
wrong to kill anyone, therefore it should be illegal. That does, of course,
lead to the obvious question of why they thought it should be a capital crime.
I mean, as I understand it, murder in every US State is charged on behalf of the
People, whereas attempted murder is charged on behalf of the intended victim.
If you were the intended victim, this, as I understand it, gives you the right
to decline to press charges (once you chose to go ahead with them, you may or
may not be able to drop the charges). As an attempted suicide, you apparently
did not get the right to decline on behalf of the intended victim (yourself), or
pretty much the only people who would go ahead with trial would be the few who
really did still want to commit suicide, but realized that they wouldnt be able
to bring themselves to go through with it (in which case, the capital punishment
gives them an easy out).
Its certainly one of the more insane stupid laws that have been on the books in
the US, but there are a lot of other more mundane ones that simply baffle the
mind. I recall there being one city in the southwestern states where theres a
$100 fine for detonating a nuclear device within the city limits. There are
other places where you are still required to fire a shotgun in the air once
every mile if youre driving a car (so as to warn horse-owners that youre
coming in one of those infernal contraptions that will scare the bejeezus out of
their horses)...but youre far more likely to get prosecuted for public
endangerment and creating a public nuisance if you do than for disobeying a
valid law on the books.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock
themselves out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
I dont know that its as simple as a black-and-white declaration. If someone
is at full mental faculty but is physically incapacitated by constant agony with
no hope of relief, how is it noble and compassionate to force that person to
continue to suffer until the reaper shows up?
Its considered humane to euthanize a wounded and suffering animal with no hope
of recovery, yet its murder to assist a wounded and suffering person in the
same way?
Im not sure I can reconcile that, to be honest.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock
themselves out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
I dont know that its as simple as a black-and-white declaration. If
someone is at full mental faculty but is physically incapacitated by constant
agony with no hope of relief, how is it noble and compassionate to force that
person to continue to suffer until the reaper shows up?
|
Its not in that situation, either. It is noble and compassionate to try and
comfort and help provide meaning to one in pain and agony.
Further, not helping someone kill themselves can hardly be characterized as
forcing them to live, Dave! Blame the persons mother!
|
Its considered humane to euthanize a wounded and suffering animal with no
hope of recovery, yet its murder to assist a wounded and suffering person in
the same way?
Im not sure I can reconcile that, to be honest.
|
For the simple reason that we are NOT animals! We are humans. That is a HUGE
distinction. I know that there are those who believe that we are simply
another animal on this mother earth, and this is where that kind of thinking
leads one. It is specious that we share 80%+ of our DNA with pond scum, Dave!
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
Vegetable? Mineral?
;-)
Tim
| | | | | | |