Gingerbread Man on 2/7/2008 at 23:04
No, I'm implying that "And if you're against the death penalty for ethical reasons but want to make an exception for child rapists because you have children - then maybe your ethics were worthless to begin with" is such a Desmond thing to pipe up with. It doesn't even make sense.
Why you gotta be all Black vs White about it?
Kolya on 2/7/2008 at 23:06
So you're the father, yes?
I already said what ethics I'm referring to. And there is no special case for child rapists in them.
Gingerbread Man on 2/7/2008 at 23:11
of what? Particularly German Intellectualism? No, that would be you. Or probably Daxim. You're like Daxim's Aristotle. what the hell.
You're not even facing in the right direction, sunshine. We don't have kids.
Also, why did you jump for "revenging the victim" instead of "removing a vicious psychopath from our planet"?
Kolya on 2/7/2008 at 23:15
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
You're like Daxim's Aristotle.
I'm doing my best here. :)
And you could at least read the thread before you stand up for her.
Gingerbread Man on 2/7/2008 at 23:32
hahahaha :D
Anyway, I don't mean offense by "Particularly German Intellectualism" -- it's just descriptive.
I do think you're being a little Black Or White about it, though. It's not necessarily inconsistent nor contradictory to hold a situational position on crime. It's so varied, for one thing... There are dozens of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in every criminal trial, the nuances and the arguments and the final instructions. If you didn't take a situational position on things like that you'd be advocating what? Trial-by-punchcard? Check here if guilty. Mandatory and prescribed punishment with no discretion and no opportunity for Society to be involved... It's not just about Victim and Accused, there are times when Society needs to clarify a stance on something. Whoever speaks for Society ultimately doesn't matter... could be the legislature, the courts, a referendum, MTV, whatever.
Overarching philosophies can be black and white, sure. Fine. I think it's wrong to break the law, as a general principle. I'm sure I constantly break the law, crossing the street where there's no crosswalk, going a little too fast in my car, whatever. I'm not Les Nessman because I have the moral fortitude to transform my general philosophy into a more realistic, situational, and flexible set of decisions. I know that no matter how particular instances cause me to deviate slightly from the greater line, I'll always correct back.
Unless, of course, something causes me to fundamentally change my position on something in General. Like when vegetarians say that -- I don't know what vegetarians say -- something about seeing a cow get slaughtered or something touchy-feely like that.
I think I had a point. I think that point was that your assertion earlier seemed to me like you were saying it was inconsistent or in some way disreputable to believe that events require evaluation one by each instead of rubber-stamping a moral veto with your eyes half-closed, yawning and affectedly glancing at your watch because issues are conveniently pre-sorted and labelled for you.
Starrfall on 3/7/2008 at 00:05
Quote Posted by Kolya
And you could at least read the thread before you stand up for her.
Not allowed, actually. It's in the marriage vows.
Quote Posted by Kolya
Are you implying that Starrfall is professionally involved with law?
I work mostly with environmental issues darlin', so never you fear.
Although since we're talking about it, at school I've been a member of the "Law Students for Death Penalty Reform" group since it's inception, and during the next school year I'll be helping underfunded prisoners bring civil rights cases against abusive cops/guards. So if you're judging based only on limited support for the death penalty you can bite me. :)
Thief13x on 3/7/2008 at 00:17
I don't generally go with "slippery slope" arguments, but I do have to ask these questions which even I have yet to anwser.
What if instead of rape, a father beats his infant within an inch of its life? What if it ends with life support or paralysis? What if he locks it in a hot car on purpose? anyone remmember the microwave case? how sick can we get with the next case before it too gets the death penalty? Is there anything worse in the world than raping a child? is raping a child as bad as killing it? What constitutes raping a child? would somone raping somone within a few days of the age limit get death? or life (if over the limit)? will this kind of a law encourage the rape+murder combo for a chance to cover it up? These are the questions that somone needs to ask and anwser.
Kolya on 3/7/2008 at 00:34
Of course one can deviate from one's principles, especially if the deviation is as minor as you described, GBM. But we're talking about taking people's life here, not speeding down the highway because Kiss is on the radio.
And while getting children can reportedly be a life changing experience I hope it won't make me an opportunist. Which is the best description I can think of for people whose situational position is determined by their own interests.
Oh and I don't even wear a watch.
I do understand why the father of said child would want to kill the guy. But that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable and should become law.
heretic on 3/7/2008 at 00:37
Quote Posted by Kolya
I do understand why the father of said child would want to kill the guy. But that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable and should become law.
Given that, I fail to see how it is even remotely morally acceptable to let these
monsters keep breathing.
