Subject:
|
Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:01:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9766 times
|
| |
|
|
--snip--
| |
| |
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.
|
Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives
who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example.
|
Yes I don’t doubt it but I think that the basic Conservative position (as
opposed to the position of Conservatives) is against it. It becomes an
‘exception to the rule’ rather than part of a grey spread.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Well, you are certainly taking a risk by shooting someone to merely injure
them. The law would assume that you are trying to kill them AFAIK. Now, I
assume your statement here is still talking about a fleeing thief, and not an
intruder in your home where you feel your family’s safety is in jeopardy, nes
pas?
|
Yes. I’m still talking about the thief rather than the extremely rare attacker.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
No, I wasn’t commenting on your typo. I really meant it. People can think
whatever they want. I’m concerned about what they do.
|
On that I think I share your view although I’m probably more accepting of
mitigating circumstances when they can drastically alter a person’s thinking.
| |
| |
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,
|
Disagree. Junkies are a terrible burden on society, not to mention the
destruction they reak in the lives of their families. I understand that some
people are able to use drugs recreationally, but the vast majority of drug
users completely lose control and become addicts, and they all but render
that point mute.
|
The vast majority of illegal narcotics users don’t cause much harm to society
(and certainly no more than users of legal narcotics such as alcohol). Heroin
and crack cocaine (being the two with the really, really high danger levels)
account for a very small portion of total illegal narcotics use. On the whole it
seems to be a combination of political inertia and misinformation that keep any
sort of change from happening rather than good evidence.
| |
I would argue against bigamy for legal reasons, not moral ones. It is a
clear violation of the marriage contract. As for polygamy; I’m not against
the concept per se, I just don’t think it is a good idea for my society.
|
But the legal contract is there to reinforce a social more rather than for any
harm reduction so its restriction is thus an arbitrart Governmental restriction
on people’s rights.
| |
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock
themselves out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
The people most in need of assisted suicide are unable to do so themselves which
is why they need assistance. The Governement is restricting their right to kill
themselves.
It seems to me that it’s an immoral society which won’t let a terminally ill
elderly person whose life is spent in great pain to end that pain at the expense
of a few months life.
| |
| |
Does that mean society at large
through the goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?
|
Societal constructs are the result of the sensibilities of its citizens. In
our society, we ban polygamy. Other countries allow it. Fine. Since we are
a free society, one can either leave the country, or work to change the
society to one’s own liking.
JOHN
|
As I’m sure you know movement of people is not really much of an option in the
current world climate so I don’t consider that a vaild option (if people could
move as freely as money I would but they can’t). Yes they can work to change the
system but I’m not questioning whether or not the system should be changed, but
whether the current system is moral.
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
|
|
|
|
