Subject:
|
Re: The Ultimate Discussion (was: Re: A Berkeley Study That Portrays Liberalism Positively?!!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:28:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1821 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
What’s the ultimate crime? Murder?
|
See? You got it on the first try! :-)
|
Ahhh, but see is unrestrained murder of thousands of your subjects “more
ultimate” than the murder of the guy that breaks into your house? If so, how can
murder be the “ultimate crime”? If not, why do they carry different sentences?
| |
| |
To someone else, the “ultimate
punishment” might be slow, excruciating torture carried out over an
uninterrupted period of years. Someone else might consider the “ultimate
punishment” to be eternal damnation, which I grant is a bit out of our
jurisdiction. So who’s correct?
|
The only punishment society can morally offer (as opposed to your abhorrent
torture example above) is incarceration, or, the deprivation of freedom. And
that is only because it is the only way to protect society from these
offenders, being that all of the big island continents on which to dump
criminals are all spoken for.
|
Don’t worry, we’ll have Mars in few years. Heck we can probably get the baddies
to work the mines too.
| |
| |
Even “innocent life” is too nebulous to be helpful. Is a newborn person
“innocent life?”
|
Of course. Of what would they be guilty?
|
What if the foetus caused the mother to become sick, or even worse the birth
resulted in her death? What if one twin foetus got it’s cord wrapped around the
neck of the other? Could it not be considered “guilty of manslaughter”?
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
