 | | Re: Excellent news! —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) Bruce has already mentioned the problem of certainty, which is a pretty strong objection IMO. The current system has numerous examples of convicted people who didn’t commit the murders of which they’re accused, so we’re actually executing (or (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Excellent news! —John Neal
| | | | | (...) Certainly not knowingly. Nothing in life is certain, death and taxes notwithstanding, so I fail to see why this issue should be held to an impossible standard. Yeah, it's irreversible, but work as hard as humanly possbile to make the system (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Excellent news! —Dave Schuler
| | | | | At this point I should restate my standard disclaimer that I see no reason to conclude that any moral absolutes can be known by humans with certainty. With this in mind, any seemingly absolute statements I make along the lines of “reality TV is (...) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Excellent news! —John Neal
| | | | | (...) Why would you be so reticent to conclude that the taking of an innocent human life for no reason or purpose, but for, say amusement, isn't absolutely wrong and evil for everyone, not just you yourself? (...) Yes, but according to you, nothing (...) (19 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Excellent news! —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Because if a person is doing it for amusement, then chances are that it’s not absolutely wrong for that person. The most broadly inclusive conclusion I can draw is to say that the taking of life is generally considered to be objectionable to (...) (19 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | |
