|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:02 pm
chrisoya Iron Sole Actually, in a lot of places, suacide isn't legal. Look up Dr. Jack Kavorkian. That man was imprisoned for assisting in suacide. Yup, that's why I noted that assisted suicide is different to suicide. Acutally, I'm pretty sure it's technically a crime to kill yourself too in some jurisdictions. Not that there's anything they can do about it when someone breaks that law, but that hasn't stopped them from making unenforcable or nonsensical laws before. Quote: Iron Sole Honestly, to me this sort of thing operates on a different level than physical suacide. It's hard to explain, but physical death is simpler, and less permanent than the sorts of mental reprogramming that might otherwise be performed. I know I don't have a real basis for believing that, so I can't really justify it enough to legislate based on it, I consider even the most benign uses of this sort of thing worse than physical death. I have to disagree there. Wiping someone's mind and replacing it with something completely different is pretty much equivalent to physical death, only with the added bonus of creating someone new. While I'm sure you could use it to torture someone, that would be comparable to torture, not murder. It's only equivalent to physical death if you believe physical death is also the end of the consiousness or the "soul". Indeed, given that as a premis, I find no fault with your conclusion on "reprogramming". I just don't accept that premis, and as such, in my worldview (which is I admit unproven and probably unprovable) reprogramming of that sort imposes a permanent destruction that doesn't occur on physical death, and is thus worse. Quote: Iron Sole I guess that one would depend on if you consider the possibility that the person in question might still exist after physical death. If a person's essence or ghost still exists, that being would still suffer from the remembered pain. I do not, and so my opinion may be inappropriate for those who do. Indeed. And mine may not be appropriate for those who don't. Still, it's fun discussing anyway.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:52 am
Iron Sole Acutally, I'm pretty sure it's technically a crime to kill yourself too in some jurisdictions. Not that there's anything they can do about it when someone breaks that law, but that hasn't stopped them from making unenforcable or nonsensical laws before. This is, of course, true. I just didn't feel like getting into the details, because it's legal where I am, is legal in quite a few other places (last I checked), and should be legal elsewhere. I'm lazy like that. Edit: And they can punish people for it - not every suicide attempt is successful. Iron Sole It's only equivalent to physical death if you believe physical death is also the end of the consiousness or the "soul". Indeed, given that as a premis, I find no fault with your conclusion on "reprogramming". I just don't accept that premis, and as such, in my worldview (which is I admit unproven and probably unprovable) reprogramming of that sort imposes a permanent destruction that doesn't occur on physical death, and is thus worse. Well, I see no evidence for the existence of any soul, unless you extend the definition to include consciousness, but then I see no evidence for it to extend beyond death. What is your worldview, then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:55 pm
chrisoya Iron Sole Acutally, I'm pretty sure it's technically a crime to kill yourself too in some jurisdictions. Not that there's anything they can do about it when someone breaks that law, but that hasn't stopped them from making unenforcable or nonsensical laws before. This is, of course, true. I just didn't feel like getting into the details, because it's legal where I am, is legal in quite a few other places (last I checked), and should be legal elsewhere. I'm lazy like that. So should assisted suacide, to be perfectly honest. Quote: Edit: And they can punish people for it - not every suicide attempt is successful. Actually they can only punish people for attempted suacide, which I'm sure carries a different penalty than actual suacide. After all, we have different punishments for murder and attempted murder. Personally, I think we should go with harsh punishments. The penalty for attempted suacide should be death. That'll show 'em. wink Quote: Iron Sole It's only equivalent to physical death if you believe physical death is also the end of the consiousness or the "soul". Indeed, given that as a premis, I find no fault with your conclusion on "reprogramming". I just don't accept that premis, and as such, in my worldview (which is I admit unproven and probably unprovable) reprogramming of that sort imposes a permanent destruction that doesn't occur on physical death, and is thus worse. Well, I see no evidence for the existence of any soul, unless you extend the definition to include consciousness, but then I see no evidence for it to extend beyond death. There is no evidence for or against. It's simply something we both have to take on faith, you nonexistence, me existence. It's not provable either way so faith is the only way to handle it. Quote: What is your worldview, then? That's a pretty big question. As for the current subject, it is my viewpoint that the brain functions like an antenna rather than a computer processor, and serves as a link to the consiousness stored elsewhere. I have no evidence and don't really feel any underlying drive to make people see the world my way, but it is what I believe in terms of an afterlife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:15 pm
If the criminal also had there mind wiped of the event. Than yes, it's a crime. There intent to do wrong, and htem knowingly do it is a crime.
If nither knows about it, and there's absolutely no evidence behind it, than its' not only not a crime but it ceases to have existed/or happened in a way, even if it did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:59 am
Of course it's still a crime. Even if there's no evidence, the action still exists. It doesn't just erase along with the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:44 am
Dictatorial Of course it's still a crime. Even if there's no evidence, the action still exists. It doesn't just erase along with the evidence. You seem to be Fundamental Lacking in the Comprehension skills to understand what is being asked and to respond in a Proper Fashion. The point here, is that Action is Dependent on Observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:05 pm
Rookherst[KOS] Dictatorial Of course it's still a crime. Even if there's no evidence, the action still exists. It doesn't just erase along with the evidence. You seem to be Fundamental Lacking in the Comprehension skills to understand what is being asked and to respond in a Proper Fashion. The point here, is that Action is Dependent on Observation. Ouch, Burn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:03 pm
Iron Sole I run a role playing game with some friends involving magic, and a possibility occured to me. There is a spell which can make a person forget events. It occured to me that in conjunction with healing spells and some mundane measures, a person could be not only healed, but made to completely forget being assaulted or raped. A similar possibility will one day be avalible to us with advances in nanotechnology, and nanobots effectively "saving" a complete breakdown of a person's body (including the brain architecture) and later "reseting" the person after a traumatic event. If there is no injury, and no memory, ethically speaking, was there a crime? Could a person be violently raped or beaten, but the asailent be morally "off the hook" if they erased the victum's memory and ensured all physical scars and indicators likewise disapeared? It's an interesting thought, but as far as I am concerned, a crime is still a crime whether or not the victim remembers it. If I violently rape and beat someone, the person has still been violently raped and beaten. All memory of the event may be erased from their minds, but the fact is that from the time I assault them until the time that their memory is erased, they still suffer from my actions. If I commit a crime, I should be responsible for my actions. It is not the responsibility of an innocent victim to have their memory erased, it is the responsibility of the person who made them suffer to take responsibility for their own actions. If the victim then chooses to get their memory erased, that's their choice. People who commit horrible crimes should not, however, be allowed to get away with whatever they want on the grounds that the victim can alway "forget". Look at this from the perspective or murder. If I kill someone, should I be allowed to get away with it? After all, the dead person can't remember it and the dead person's family/friend can always get their memory erased (after some brief trauma, of course). I should not be allowed to get away with it. Others have sufferred because of deliberately malicious actions on my part. If I was morally "off the hook" for my actions, I could kill, rape and torture as many people as I please without taking any responsibility whatsoever. Though I am generally Libertarian, I simply do not believe that any society can function if this is the way that things work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:32 am
Intellectual Dishonesty Piss's me Off. It is only Seconded by Mental Masturbation. This Person Did the same thing in here, as in another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:33 pm
If the crime occured, the crime occured, regardless of any memory or evidence troubles. The other person would know the crime happened, so it happened.
...If that makes sense. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c_flip.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
