|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:29 pm
heart Seeing as how this discussion has broadened beyond that of just the death penalty, I shall partake once more.
On the individual level, we may decide many things. To say, "who is to say?" Is redundant. When something is said or done, it was by at least one, if not many. But whether 1 or 10,000 agree that something was right or wrong, it is still a decision. And no matter what you decide, there will be those who disagree. This is only natural. We all have a choice and a chance to do our part. If you like something the way that is, then support it, and you are as right as you need to be. If you don't like something the way that it is, then seek to change it, and you are as right as you need to be.
This is both the law and nature of humanity, regardless to whatever power or society we answer to.
But to answer at least one recent question... as there are many.
It was asked what is the difference between a soldier and a murderer if they are both killing?
The murderer kills for his own ends. If killing your family will grant him his desire, he may do so without remorse. The soldier on the other hand may lay down his life to stop such a killer from ever reaching your family. So tell me... which one would you rather have cease their efforts?
Sometimes the only choice you have when confronted with a killer, is to remove them. If it is clear that they will continue to kill or be of further harm, then it is just enough, even if it is just enough for the sake of protecting those around us. But regardless, much care and debate goes into making these decisons. heart
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:43 pm
Sailor_Solitaire heart Seeing as how this discussion has broadened beyond that of just the death penalty, I shall partake once more. On the individual level, we may decide many things. To say, "who is to say?" Is redundant. When something is said or done, it was by at least one, if not many. But whether 1 or 10,000 agree that something was right or wrong, it is still a decision. And no matter what you decide, there will be those who disagree. This is only natural. We all have a choice and a chance to do our part. If you like something the way that is, then support it, and you are as right as you need to be. If you don't like something the way that it is, then seek to change it, and you are as right as you need to be. This is both the law and nature of humanity, regardless to whatever power or society we answer to. But to answer at least one recent question... as there are many. It was asked what is the difference between a soldier and a murderer if they are both killing? The murderer kills for his own ends. If killing your family will grant him his desire, he may do so without remorse. The soldier on the other hand may lay down his life to stop such a killer from ever reaching your family. So tell me... which one would you rather have cease their efforts? Sometimes the only choice you have when confronted with a killer, is to remove them. If it is clear that they will continue to kill or be of further harm, then it is just enough, even if it is just enough for the sake of protecting those around us. But regardless, much care and debate goes into making these decisons. heart Yeah, most probably it's another infinite debate... You say soldiers kill for a different reason. But motives are one thing and consequences are another thing. If consequences are the same, then what's the point in punishing the murderer "just because he killed"? I don't believe murderers may kill for no reason, there's always something behind this. Besides soldiers kill soldiers often. They all have families and values they are protecting. And when soldiers kill innocent people "accidentally" they're often being forgiven. I don't have words for that, but it's most probably because I don't have any words to describe how I hate war... Yeah, yeah, I know it's necesarry for the development, I know it's unavoidable, blah blah, I still don't like the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:27 pm
the Innocence Project has proven again and again, through DNA evidence, that convicts on death row were innocent.
this goes to show that judges and juries make mistakes.
in the case of the death penalty, it could be a serious and permanent mistake.
we mennonites oppose death penalties, and war, and the carrying of any anti-personnel weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:37 pm
chessiejo the Innocence Project has proven again and again, through DNA evidence, that convicts on death row were innocent. this goes to show that judges and juries make mistakes. in the case of the death penalty, it could be a serious and permanent mistake. we mennonites oppose death penalties, and war, and the carrying of any anti-personnel weapon. I don't know a thing about mennonites, but I'm starting to love them. So sweet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:33 pm
brainnsoup Which "misconception"?
The idea that your groups are picked by you?
Well you posted them.
The words are next to your avatar.
I hope then that they are your words.
And if nothing qualifies you to decide who lives and who dies, then why do you continue to state your opinions on who deserves to be a part of society as fact?
How did you decide those groups?
And where do you draw the line?
How do you prove that a murderer had only malicious intent?
And if you did not mean that we should kill "defectives", then why did you post that in the first place?
Either that's what you origionally meant, and it was relevant to the thread.
Or it was not and not at all relevant to the thread.
And either way, at best you suggest that we treat people not fit for your society as second-class citizens.
Which is also morally questionable.
And you still fail to provide any reasoning for why we should do that. That I might have defined the failures. I do not draw the lines- I do not even presuppose lines. I do not understand. I do not ask who deserves to be a part of society but rather the more productive question of who can function as a part of society. I didn't decide upon the groups, that was done a century ago. I do not draw a line, rather I set up a hurdle at best. That a murderer has only intent to cease another's life? It is inherent in the term. I did not post as much at all- rather that defectives are not to be members of society and that some are forfeit to live. Pardon me? Absolutely relevant but misinterpreted. Not at all, all are either fit to be citizens or forfeit the right to be citizenry at all. It makes sense not to expect more than can be provided however. I have yet to be asked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:39 pm
Raticiel Socrates chose this way of dying, as he never found it that bad to be dead (I assume I don't have to explain further?) and I don't really think he has anything to do with this discussion. And he never felt "guilty" rolleyes I have questions for you if you don't mind. Have you ever felt real guilt? Do you know how terrible it is to be guilty for someone's suffering or death? I believe people that don't feel guilt are psychos (like Charles Manson), and as for that they should be hospitalized and/or left the way they are, but why killed? They can be useful. I find no reasonable people that wouldn't feel bad for what they did (at least the may not feel it instantly). We can't know what are their true feelings so we should let them be alive. He never felt himself guilty, nor did he offer his death in aught but protest. I have felt minor degrees of sincere guilt. I make a point of not letting myself feel guilty for another's suffering- the very idea terrifies me. To not feel guilt for wrong action is indeed psychopathic- the criminal order of failure in particular. Reasonable people are not true failures and so can be fixed, I do not support their being put down. People are, however, quickly judgeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:42 pm
Raticiel Is it sanctioned to be a soldier and kill people during war? (or maybe: "war") What's the difference between a murderer and a soldier? And I am such a damn failure you know... I feel overjoyed with that... xd I have another question: if you don't say what's good/bad then who/what told you and why do you find it a "necessity"? (I hope I understand what you say, as english is not my first language) Absolutely- the first few books of the Republic define the same. The distinction is one of motive- murder is far more personal than soldiery. I apologise but in my inebriated state I do not fully understand but you appear to be in no means a failure to myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:57 pm
heart Yes, it's true, that depending on our intent, we may or may not be doing something right or wrong. Pitting soldiers against other soldiers, and them killing one another. That is a very significant issue to bring to the table, amongst others.
I have been on the battlefield before. And I have been give orders to kill people. Under the circumstances, I refused to follow those orders because I didn't see the moral significance.
Basically I was ordered to open fire on a group of people that had been deemed hostile. It was dark out and we were using nightvision. Allegedly these people were preparing to launch a missile. Well short of firing, I observed through my scope and saw that the very thing they were calling a missile was just a pipe fixture. I couldn't tell exactly, but it wasn't a missile for sure. They followed up by ordering me to open fire with 'lethal force'.
I refused the order of my supeior officer... which is actually a very high-end offense. About a minute later, order was given to relieve me of my duty and another gunner was ordered to take position.
That gunner opened fire, taking out the figure that was placing the alleged missile.
That night I received a statement regarding my conduct.
Apparently there was a miscommunication.
It was just a pipe fixture, and the man that was shot, and later died, was innocent. Added to that fact, he was only a boy, not even of age.
Later, when the guy that returned who'd shot the boy, he received the same information. He was in tears for days, and refused to go out on missions for having wrongfully 'murdered' as he put it in his own words, a young boy.
Yes, I was freed from that burden by refusing the order myself.
The other soldier was found to be not guilty because he was following orders based on intelligence that was mis-appropriated.
There was a group of men with a missile nearby, and they did fire it. It went into the camp shortly after the incident, and the situation was later clarified.
Fortunately the missile hit an empty structure, and no one was hurt or killed.
However, one innocent boy was dead, and another man's soul, whom even though labeled as innocent himself by legal query, suffered immensely for the fact of what he had done.
So I truly understand any perspective that agrees that war is not so just as it might seem.
I am grateful to have saved myself from that suffering, but saddened to know that it still had to happen like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:04 pm
Sailor_Solitaire heart Yes, it's true, that depending on our intent, we may or may not be doing something right or wrong. Pitting soldiers against other soldiers, and them killing one another. That is a very significant issue to bring to the table, amongst others. I have been on the battlefield before. And I have been give orders to kill people. Under the circumstances, I refused to follow those orders because I didn't see the moral significance. Basically I was ordered to open fire on a group of people that had been deemed hostile. It was dark out and we were using nightvision. Allegedly these people were preparing to launch a missile. Well short of firing, I observed through my scope and saw that the very thing they were calling a missile was just a pipe fixture. I couldn't tell exactly, but it wasn't a missile for sure. They followed up by ordering me to open fire with 'lethal force'. I refused the order of my supeior officer... which is actually a very high-end offense. About a minute later, order was given to relieve me of my duty and another gunner was ordered to take position. That gunner opened fire, taking out the figure that was placing the alleged missile. That night I received a statement regarding my conduct. Apparently there was a miscommunication. It was just a pipe fixture, and the man that was shot, and later died, was innocent. Added to that fact, he was only a boy, not even of age. Later, when the guy that returned who'd shot the boy, he received the same information. He was in tears for days, and refused to go out on missions for having wrongfully 'murdered' as he put it in his own words, a young boy. Yes, I was freed from that burden by refusing the order myself. The other soldier was found to be not guilty because he was following orders based on intelligence that was mis-appropriated. There was a group of men with a missile nearby, and they did fire it. It went into the camp shortly after the incident, and the situation was later clarified. Fortunately the missile hit an empty structure, and no one was hurt or killed. However, one innocent boy was dead, and another man's soul, whom even though labeled as innocent himself by legal query, suffered immensely for the fact of what he had done. So I truly understand any perspective that agrees that war is not so just as it might seem. I am grateful to have saved myself from that suffering, but saddened to know that it still had to happen like that. I believe that to be a situation best described as collateral and your best course of action to simply put it behind you and not to look back as the results can only be poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:10 pm
CH1YO brainnsoup Which "misconception"?
The idea that your groups are picked by you?
Well you posted them.
The words are next to your avatar.
I hope then that they are your words.
And if nothing qualifies you to decide who lives and who dies, then why do you continue to state your opinions on who deserves to be a part of society as fact?
How did you decide those groups?
And where do you draw the line?
How do you prove that a murderer had only malicious intent?
And if you did not mean that we should kill "defectives", then why did you post that in the first place?
Either that's what you origionally meant, and it was relevant to the thread.
Or it was not and not at all relevant to the thread.
And either way, at best you suggest that we treat people not fit for your society as second-class citizens.
Which is also morally questionable.
And you still fail to provide any reasoning for why we should do that. That I might have defined the failures. I do not draw the lines- I do not even presuppose lines. I do not understand. I do not ask who deserves to be a part of society but rather the more productive question of who can function as a part of society. I didn't decide upon the groups, that was done a century ago. I do not draw a line, rather I set up a hurdle at best. That a murderer has only intent to cease another's life? It is inherent in the term. I did not post as much at all- rather that defectives are not to be members of society and that some are forfeit to live. Pardon me? Absolutely relevant but misinterpreted. Not at all, all are either fit to be citizens or forfeit the right to be citizenry at all. It makes sense not to expect more than can be provided however. I have yet to be asked.
You make a very bold statement and have yet to give any explination.
You're certainly very talented at making very long posts while saying absolutely nothing, but I don't see the point.
Is there a point that you're trying to make?
If you do, then by all means, state it clearly.
But this is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:26 pm
brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup Which "misconception"?
The idea that your groups are picked by you?
Well you posted them.
The words are next to your avatar.
I hope then that they are your words.
And if nothing qualifies you to decide who lives and who dies, then why do you continue to state your opinions on who deserves to be a part of society as fact?
How did you decide those groups?
And where do you draw the line?
How do you prove that a murderer had only malicious intent?
And if you did not mean that we should kill "defectives", then why did you post that in the first place?
Either that's what you origionally meant, and it was relevant to the thread.
Or it was not and not at all relevant to the thread.
And either way, at best you suggest that we treat people not fit for your society as second-class citizens.
Which is also morally questionable.
And you still fail to provide any reasoning for why we should do that. That I might have defined the failures. I do not draw the lines- I do not even presuppose lines. I do not understand. I do not ask who deserves to be a part of society but rather the more productive question of who can function as a part of society. I didn't decide upon the groups, that was done a century ago. I do not draw a line, rather I set up a hurdle at best. That a murderer has only intent to cease another's life? It is inherent in the term. I did not post as much at all- rather that defectives are not to be members of society and that some are forfeit to live. Pardon me? Absolutely relevant but misinterpreted. Not at all, all are either fit to be citizens or forfeit the right to be citizenry at all. It makes sense not to expect more than can be provided however. I have yet to be asked.
You make a very bold statement and have yet to give any explination.
You're certainly very talented at making very long posts while saying absolutely nothing, but I don't see the point.
Is there a point that you're trying to make?
If you do, then by all means, state it clearly.
But this is ridiculous.What exactly do you want to know? I have expressed my opinion on the death penalty, discussed to whom it should be applied, the criteria for such group membership and explained how it is they should come to be forfeit. Whatever else do you want to know. Also I should thank you but I can assure you that there is plenty of information to be unpacked from my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:32 pm
CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup Which "misconception"?
The idea that your groups are picked by you?
Well you posted them.
The words are next to your avatar.
I hope then that they are your words.
And if nothing qualifies you to decide who lives and who dies, then why do you continue to state your opinions on who deserves to be a part of society as fact?
How did you decide those groups?
And where do you draw the line?
How do you prove that a murderer had only malicious intent?
And if you did not mean that we should kill "defectives", then why did you post that in the first place?
Either that's what you origionally meant, and it was relevant to the thread.
Or it was not and not at all relevant to the thread.
And either way, at best you suggest that we treat people not fit for your society as second-class citizens.
Which is also morally questionable.
And you still fail to provide any reasoning for why we should do that. That I might have defined the failures. I do not draw the lines- I do not even presuppose lines. I do not understand. I do not ask who deserves to be a part of society but rather the more productive question of who can function as a part of society. I didn't decide upon the groups, that was done a century ago. I do not draw a line, rather I set up a hurdle at best. That a murderer has only intent to cease another's life? It is inherent in the term. I did not post as much at all- rather that defectives are not to be members of society and that some are forfeit to live. Pardon me? Absolutely relevant but misinterpreted. Not at all, all are either fit to be citizens or forfeit the right to be citizenry at all. It makes sense not to expect more than can be provided however. I have yet to be asked.
You make a very bold statement and have yet to give any explination.
You're certainly very talented at making very long posts while saying absolutely nothing, but I don't see the point.
Is there a point that you're trying to make?
If you do, then by all means, state it clearly.
But this is ridiculous.What exactly do you want to know? I have expressed my opinion on the death penalty, discussed to whom it should be applied, the criteria for such group membership and explained how it is they should come to be forfeit. Whatever else do you want to know. Also I should thank you but I can assure you that there is plenty of information to be unpacked from my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:38 pm
brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup Which "misconception"?
The idea that your groups are picked by you?
Well you posted them.
The words are next to your avatar.
I hope then that they are your words.
And if nothing qualifies you to decide who lives and who dies, then why do you continue to state your opinions on who deserves to be a part of society as fact?
How did you decide those groups?
And where do you draw the line?
How do you prove that a murderer had only malicious intent?
And if you did not mean that we should kill "defectives", then why did you post that in the first place?
Either that's what you origionally meant, and it was relevant to the thread.
Or it was not and not at all relevant to the thread.
And either way, at best you suggest that we treat people not fit for your society as second-class citizens.
Which is also morally questionable.
And you still fail to provide any reasoning for why we should do that. That I might have defined the failures. I do not draw the lines- I do not even presuppose lines. I do not understand. I do not ask who deserves to be a part of society but rather the more productive question of who can function as a part of society. I didn't decide upon the groups, that was done a century ago. I do not draw a line, rather I set up a hurdle at best. That a murderer has only intent to cease another's life? It is inherent in the term. I did not post as much at all- rather that defectives are not to be members of society and that some are forfeit to live. Pardon me? Absolutely relevant but misinterpreted. Not at all, all are either fit to be citizens or forfeit the right to be citizenry at all. It makes sense not to expect more than can be provided however. I have yet to be asked.
You make a very bold statement and have yet to give any explination.
You're certainly very talented at making very long posts while saying absolutely nothing, but I don't see the point.
Is there a point that you're trying to make?
If you do, then by all means, state it clearly.
But this is ridiculous.What exactly do you want to know? I have expressed my opinion on the death penalty, discussed to whom it should be applied, the criteria for such group membership and explained how it is they should come to be forfeit. Whatever else do you want to know. Also I should thank you but I can assure you that there is plenty of information to be unpacked from my posts. Who? Defectives- judged to be so as they are not properly ans safely able to conduct themselves in the social world. Of which notably a section of the criminal failures- those too far removed from potential safe use- should simply be terminated. Why? Simply as it prevents friction and difficulties between society and defectives, making for a more practical and streamline system- profitable to all concerned save those as are terminated for the reasons noted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:31 pm
brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup Which "misconception"?
The idea that your groups are picked by you?
Well you posted them.
The words are next to your avatar.
I hope then that they are your words.
And if nothing qualifies you to decide who lives and who dies, then why do you continue to state your opinions on who deserves to be a part of society as fact?
How did you decide those groups?
And where do you draw the line?
How do you prove that a murderer had only malicious intent?
And if you did not mean that we should kill "defectives", then why did you post that in the first place?
Either that's what you origionally meant, and it was relevant to the thread.
Or it was not and not at all relevant to the thread.
And either way, at best you suggest that we treat people not fit for your society as second-class citizens.
Which is also morally questionable.
And you still fail to provide any reasoning for why we should do that. That I might have defined the failures. I do not draw the lines- I do not even presuppose lines. I do not understand. I do not ask who deserves to be a part of society but rather the more productive question of who can function as a part of society. I didn't decide upon the groups, that was done a century ago. I do not draw a line, rather I set up a hurdle at best. That a murderer has only intent to cease another's life? It is inherent in the term. I did not post as much at all- rather that defectives are not to be members of society and that some are forfeit to live. Pardon me? Absolutely relevant but misinterpreted. Not at all, all are either fit to be citizens or forfeit the right to be citizenry at all. It makes sense not to expect more than can be provided however. I have yet to be asked.
You make a very bold statement and have yet to give any explination.
You're certainly very talented at making very long posts while saying absolutely nothing, but I don't see the point.
Is there a point that you're trying to make?
If you do, then by all means, state it clearly.
But this is ridiculous. I think this is evidence that there is much misunderstanding here. CH1YO may be wrong about some things. CH1YO may be right about some things. But to say CH1YO is making long posts that say abolutely nothing is well... that leads me to the clear conclusion that people aren't understaning many of CH1YO's posts. Though they may lack in references, they are quite literate and often just as clear as what anyone else posts. I would think it improper to expect any of you to change how you communicate - because all of it makes sense - so just try to go the extra mile in understanding each other's views and statements. biggrin heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:23 pm
CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup Which "misconception"?
The idea that your groups are picked by you?
Well you posted them.
The words are next to your avatar.
I hope then that they are your words.
And if nothing qualifies you to decide who lives and who dies, then why do you continue to state your opinions on who deserves to be a part of society as fact?
How did you decide those groups?
And where do you draw the line?
How do you prove that a murderer had only malicious intent?
And if you did not mean that we should kill "defectives", then why did you post that in the first place?
Either that's what you origionally meant, and it was relevant to the thread.
Or it was not and not at all relevant to the thread.
And either way, at best you suggest that we treat people not fit for your society as second-class citizens.
Which is also morally questionable.
And you still fail to provide any reasoning for why we should do that. That I might have defined the failures. I do not draw the lines- I do not even presuppose lines. I do not understand. I do not ask who deserves to be a part of society but rather the more productive question of who can function as a part of society. I didn't decide upon the groups, that was done a century ago. I do not draw a line, rather I set up a hurdle at best. That a murderer has only intent to cease another's life? It is inherent in the term. I did not post as much at all- rather that defectives are not to be members of society and that some are forfeit to live. Pardon me? Absolutely relevant but misinterpreted. Not at all, all are either fit to be citizens or forfeit the right to be citizenry at all. It makes sense not to expect more than can be provided however. I have yet to be asked.
You make a very bold statement and have yet to give any explination.
You're certainly very talented at making very long posts while saying absolutely nothing, but I don't see the point.
Is there a point that you're trying to make?
If you do, then by all means, state it clearly.
But this is ridiculous.What exactly do you want to know? I have expressed my opinion on the death penalty, discussed to whom it should be applied, the criteria for such group membership and explained how it is they should come to be forfeit. Whatever else do you want to know. Also I should thank you but I can assure you that there is plenty of information to be unpacked from my posts. Who? Defectives- judged to be so as they are not properly ans safely able to conduct themselves in the social world. Of which notably a section of the criminal failures- those too far removed from potential safe use- should simply be terminated. Why? Simply as it prevents friction and difficulties between society and defectives, making for a more practical and streamline system- profitable to all concerned save those as are terminated for the reasons noted. Have you noticed how the margins of "healthy" and "normal" psychology have grown thinner and thinner with each passing year? Yet, drug companies are now allowed to advertise their antidepressants and anti-ADHD pills on television and in magazines. The message is clear - if you don't fit this ever increasingly rigorous standards of behavior and beliefs, you are then unfit to live in our society, and thus need to be drugged into submission until you can behave like "us", even if you're not doing anything that actually harms anyone. The mentally handicapped are in a similar situation every day, just without a "magic pill" to fix their "dysfunction". Murderers can be rehabilitated - look to the founder of the Crips for one example. The mentally handicapped may not be good surgeons or rocket scientists, but they can wash dishes and slap together hamburgers. Why are they suddenly unworthy of life, where you suddenly are? Who defined this carp "a century ago"? Why is this Darwinian nonsense still valid today when we have demonstrated that we've escaped evolution in that sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
