Subject:
|
Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Jun 2007 22:58:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9569 times
|
| |
| |
--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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|