To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 28480
28479  |  28481
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 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. 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.

   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.

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.

   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.

--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.

  
   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, bigamy and assisted suicide. Does that mean society at large through the goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?

Tim



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
 
(...) Agreed. There are still consequences for actions. (...) Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example. (...) Well, you are certainly taking a risk by (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
 
(...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR