|
|
 | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Yes. I was hoping to take one at a time. JOHN (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Hey, that's an important distinction to make, and I don't think that I was making it in our part of the thread. But let's make sure we're clear-- You're debating about the morality of execution itself (presumably in cases in which guilt is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) That well may be, but my point was and is to try and address the moral issue of execution directly. Your post reminds me of that classic scene in "Mr. Mom" where Jack is using the "Rocky" analogy. "Which Rocky?" :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
