Subject:
|
Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:35:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9316 times
|
| |
|
|
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 isn’t ideal, because there isn’t 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.
|
I’d be more sympathetic too, but they’re 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 I’m
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 it’s 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 don’t 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 wouldn’t 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. That’s 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 family’s 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 doesn’t 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 it’s reasonable force.
| |
Guns are all we
really have now to stop thieves, and they are crude and don’t do what we
necessarily what them to do, but I’m 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 you’re not permanently maiming someone for
a property crime I’m 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 don’t care.
|
Damn typos.
|
No, I wasn’t commenting on your typo. I really meant it. People can think
whatever they want. I’m 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 doesn’t 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 else’s rights. Some
examples of activities that don’t 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; I’m not against the
concept per se, I just don’t 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
one’s own liking.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
71 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
