|
| Thread: Is Bush crazy? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Abazagaroth
Hired Hero
Paladin of Knowledge
|
posted August 26, 2002 09:26 AM |
|
|
Tax return form 1040 and supplemental forms are your friend. Charity is tax deductable already.
____________
C. David Kreger
dkreger@yahoo.com
[url]http://www.modernhumanorigins.com[/url]
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted August 26, 2002 01:05 PM |
|
|
To me it seems like Abazagaroth is the one making the most sense here, however this discussion has mostly been cordial and factual, and that's good.
Now, I'm no expert in history, neither political nor "warical( )", but there are some things about the USA and George W. Bush that amazes me no end.
This new "Operation-please-rat-out-your-neighbor" Bush has started. From what I've heard this has the makings of another McCarthyish uprooting of supposed malignant and dangerous individuals, bordering on the types of operations executed by fascist regimes.
Second, the conservative christians of the USA. I, myself being a christian, agree with their stands on abortion, believing in the sanctity of life and God's plan for every one of us. I am not saying it's an easy subject, it's just that what it all boils down to is do any of us have the right to say "This child shall not be given a chance at life". The only way this could ever be halfway justified, in my opinion, is if one could be certain that if given life, the child in question would find it so awful that he/she would have preferred to never have been born (and I don't see who could know).
But then they astound me by favoring the death penalty!! This is something I can in no way begin to comprehend. The very reasons they fought for the unborn children now means naught to them? Does the words "You shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) mean anything to them? Or do they choose to disregard this, as some people are especially evil or sinful (sarcasm)??
The gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, verses 21 through 24:21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
The gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, verses 38 through 48
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; 40 and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; 41 and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
But it would be a folly, I suppose, putting to much emphasis on the direct quotations of Jesus Christ (sarcasm).
It could also bear to be mentioned that the U.S. is the only country, along with other civilized greats such as Somalia, Pakistan and Iran (or Iraq), who executes minors.
It would be interesting to hear how the americans here think about these issues.
Think well
DonGio
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted August 26, 2002 03:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It could also bear to be mentioned that the U.S. is the only country, along with other civilized greats such as Somalia, Pakistan and Iran (or Iraq), who executes minors.
How is it a bad thing? Some minors deserve death more gruesome than most grown ups. IMO age, shouldn't be a factor. In fact it only encourages crime, since a teenager can hide behind his age to avoid death penalty and I don't see why an 18 yeat old can be given death penalty and a 17 year old avoids proper punishment because he was born 1 year later...
____________
If I were a banana and you were a monkey, would you eat me?
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2002 10:31 PM |
|
|
It is a way to handle overpopulation...
But I think no nation has the right of taking the lives of citizens. Execution is a quick and cheap solution. And in the end, the innocent family of the killer will be more penalized then the killer himself. He'd better rot in a prison and reconcider his deeds till the end of his life then just be terminated.
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted August 26, 2002 10:54 PM |
|
|
Some people are beyond redemption. And I am a strong supporter of death penalty. Why? Well because some people don't deserve the previlege to rot in jail. Examples are serial killers, rapists, child molestors etc. I know there are some cases where innocent people get executed, but IMO its a sacrifice we should make to show that violent crimes WILL be punished accordingly.
Now look at it from economic point of view. Why should we pay extra taxes in order to keep these worthless scum in jail? I know I wouldn't want to. Just quickly execute them. Its much more cost-effective and sends the right message across. And as for their families, what have THEY got to do with it? Why should the law show compassion to violent criminals merely because it will upset their family?
____________
If I were a banana and you were a monkey, would you eat me?
|
|
Sir_NaTuz_III
Adventuring Hero
Water Unicorn Knight
|
posted August 27, 2002 01:15 AM |
|
|
Pure Chaos
Yeah kill all the killers to wath? to know how they feel wen kill people? or to start transforming in a killer?
but obiously sure they WINNED this ¿no? is their fold.
you thing wath you can kill someone because it killed other?
is the same thing of the war :in the war no one win exept the controlers of the war.
if you kill someon you thing wath magical will resucite the assesinated people?
to wath you want kill an asesin? i dont understand.
Te compadesco(Ya me imagiaba que los ingleses no usan la palabra compadeser).
you make me to be pitiful
and i not defending criminals i defending the future of the humanity.
____________
Mi corage es mi espada.
Mi fe es mi escudo.
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 27, 2002 01:19 AM |
|
|
Natuz is like the "real" i_ruels, funny stuff
____________
|
|
Abazagaroth
Hired Hero
Paladin of Knowledge
|
|
posted August 27, 2002 06:04 AM |
|
|
I'm not going to touch the abortion issue due to its flame capacity, but I would like to make some points about the death penalty. Now, so no one misunderstands, I personally support the death penalty as a mechanism of justice in the United States, however, I personally feel it should be halted at this time until the issues with its application has been dealt with. Its obvious that the last halting of the death penalty in the U.S. in the mid 70s did not fix the problem of the death penalty being applied to the poor at a disparate rate (the disparate rate between black/white seems to be more an artifact of more blacks being in poverty, and poverty being the underlying cause of the disparity in application).
A point I would like to make to the non-americans (most western nations as a whole consider the U.S. death penalty barbaric) here, is that there are historical reasons why - for instance - Europe has a strong anti-execution sentiment among the populace. Primarily, it is a historical past of continuous abuse of captitol punishment which has led to the strong anti-death penalty sentiment. This is not the case in the United States though. Since the inception of the U.S. as a state, there has been due process, and this includes the death penalty. This is the reason for the lack of anti-death penalty sentiment in the U.S. (~70% of the U.S. population support the death penalty in terms of the rights of the state to use the punishment, the numbers that support the current judicial application of the deat penalty is much smaller though) compared to the rest of the western world.
I'm not going to get drawn into another huge debate, so I will stop here rather than going into the issue of rights and such. I just wanted to give a point that many non-U.S. individuals don't seem to realize. Also, relgious ideology should not even enter the equation, as we are - supposed to be anyway - a secular state, and the enactment of laws based on a particular religious ideology or religious dictate go against the grain of how the state is supposed to govern. It really does boil down to the rights of the citizen as enumerated in law by the government, and the right of the state to use execution, and the various philosophical approaches that the question can be addressed.
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted August 27, 2002 10:23 AM |
|
Edited By: DonGio on 27 Aug 2002
|
Thanks for serious and respectful replies.
PC: You seem like a person fueled by anger and hatred. A couple of things: Have you given any thought to the purpose of laws, legislation and penalizing systems? Is it to punish those who have done wrong, to prevent further wrongs, or to give victims "justice"? If you answer a), why? Does the punishment of the wrongdoer right anything? If he is pained, does that level some cosmic scale of justice? And if you answer c), please tell me you're joking. That is truly ego-centric, and not constructive in any way whatsoever. Does the word sharia ring a bell?
And another thing: What if the executed person is innocent? And don't tell me the U.S. court never makes mistakes...
Abaz: Yeah, it's supposed to be a secular state. But it's nonetheless founded on christian values and ethics, and it is ruled by people styling themselves christian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been issues about mandatory prayers in school and so forth (we get 60 minutes in Norway, too)?
And regarding the purpose of capital punishment: Isn't it first and foremost to be preventive? I mean, the taking of another human's life is kind of pointless in itself, regarded as a standalone action, it doesn't solve anything. Only, if it would scare people from repeating the crimes of the executed offender, it would serve a purpose. But doesn't statistics show that capital punishment is having the exact opposite effect?
EDIT: That's a very funny sig, Arachnid. And the post too.
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
Abazagaroth
Hired Hero
Paladin of Knowledge
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 12:10 AM |
|
|
The issue of secular versus religious ideology is one of great importance in the U.S., but one that has had the real issue muddled. many religious indivdiuals in the U.S. do not understand the U.S. constitution of the history behind it (the amount of people that think individuals like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc were christian is amazing, and incorrect). Our constitution states that "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This states two things, the state will not create no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prevent the free exercise of religion. The latter part is a given in most individuals understanding of the constitution, the former is one not understood by far too many people.
Religious ideology is not the proper perspective for laws to be made or interpreted. Unfortunately, the large number of religious individuals combined with the shift from responsible governing to petty politics has eroded this. It is especially clear when one looks at the contemporary atmosphere when the constitution was written. There were many groups of people that left Europe due to religious persecution, and the concern was a representative government (which, by definition, will be represented by the majority) in which the majority would abuse the minority with regards to religion. This was not an issue of freedom of religion, as much as it was freedom *from* religion (specifically sponsored by the state in its enactment of laws). Freedom from religion results in freedom of religion.
The statement in the constitution begins with the part about congress not establishing laws respecting the establishment of religion. This is one of those unfortunate instances where the changing language muddles the original intent (which can be easily seen if one takes the time to actually review what was going on in the political debates of the time, particularly the Federalist vs. Antifederalists battle to ratify the constitution, which led to the Bill of Rights in the first place because of issues such as fear of government abusing people, including regarding religion). Too many people see "establishment" and think, hey, they mean the formation of a state religion, which is completely 100% incorrect. This may be an upshot of the first amendment, but it is a causal upshot of the government being prohibitted from creating laws that follow the dictates of a religion.
Religion informs morality and ethics, of course, and morality and ethics are some of the building blocks of philosophical political viewpoints. The ethic of life being "sacred" or that the state doesn't have the "right" to execute prisoners can definitely be informed by one's religious perspective that only "god" has the right to take life, or whatnot. There is nothing wrong with that. However, that is not the place of the government to propose and create laws based on religious ethic or edict. There is no way you can stop someone from using their religion as the basis of their objection to the death penalty and to try and convince others of that fact, freedom of speech is guaranteed. However, I can still attack that presumption and point out the problems with creating laws based on religious ideology. I am not religious, and hence, I have a problem when laws are enacted or proposed that's basis is religious in nature. However, I also have a problem with morals or ethics being the basis of any objection or justification to/for a law, as such things are subjective, and subjective opinion should not be the basis of due process or government.
All have subjective opinions on things, but the reason religious morals and ethics, in particular, go against the grain of the constitution is that the reasons for the first amendment is to protect the minority from the majority (since the majority will always be represented over the minority in government due to the democratic voting process) in terms of religion. For example, it is a "sin" to have an adulterous affair. Since this is a sin in christian ideology, and hence leads to the moral opinion that it is "wrong", we have in some places laws (that's right, in some places there are laws making adultery a crime that can lead to imprisonment) that make adultery illegal. Now, if a married couple are, say, "swingers" and decided to sleep with people other than their spouse, they are committing adultery. These two people don't consider it wrong. Their actions have no impact on the lives of other citizens. Now why should the religious opinion of the majority cause this minority to be jailed over this? This same issue can be applied to things like homosexuality, cursing in public, oral sex, etc.
These are issues where the effective majority rule has led to laws being created restricting the rights of the minority. Now, this is effectively what happens with all laws (just because one thinks murder is "ok" doesn't mean they are being oppressed by the majority because murder is a crime), but, the litmus test is impact on other citizens. The weighing of the rights of the individual versus the rights of another individual. Obviously, one's belief that murder is ok would impact the rights of other citizens.
Take it as you will, and the guaranteed freedom of speech and the individual rights to freedom of thought will always make the issue of subjectivity, opinion, morality, and such fuzzy in some cases.
____________
C. David Kreger
dkreger@yahoo.com
[url]http://www.modernhumanorigins.com[/url]
|
|
Nivek
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 12:31 AM |
|
|
Wow, I missed a lot of stuff.
Quote:
Nivek
Yes I acknowledge that when you remove one dictator or evil leader that it becomes very complex on what to do next. History has shown that sometimes decent leaders follow and at other times evil leaders follow. The point though is that lets say we have a 50/50 chance of getting a positive change in leadership in Iraq…that is still better than what we have now which is a dictator who is 100% despicable.
But, is that a chance worth taking? Is it worth the risk of death on both sides, as well as costs involved?
Quote:
I think we do have evidence that Iraq has weapons of great destruction. Also it seems to be common sense that if he doesn’t have anything to hide he would of not kicked the UN investigators out long ago.
Well, he could have been producing weapons that would have had some damage effect in violation of the sanctions, but nothing to pose a threat to other nations. But I'm not sure if he does or not... I don't think that anybody is sure except for Saddam himself.
Quote:
Is the regime change in Iraq for oil…I am sure that is a big part of the equation…but the ONLY part of the equation…I think not. Rarely in life are actions taken with only one motive. His dictatorship combined with his history of attacking other innocent nations and sponsoring terrorist should be reason enough for an invasion let alone that his capability for serious damage to others is increasing day by day.
Yes, but oil interests probably pushed this over the edge. Why not attack China with their human rights record?
Quote:
I think congress is merely staging questions…I don’t see anyone standing up saying “we should never attack Iraq”….in fact both republicans and democrats on the whole seem to be in support of a regime change.
Well, that's where the problem lies thanks to politics. The questions of spending and sending out more soldiers to a war that just may be unnecessary are definitely dividing a lot of people's opinions on this.
Quote:
You are right terrorism will most likely always be with us…but so are murderers and child molesters…doesn’t’ mean that we don’t take care of the ones that we are aware of and have the power to dethrone them.
True, but how are we going to prevent another 9/11? Is there really a way to prevent them from flying a plane into a building if they want to enough? With the way we're assing around right now (OBL still alive, Al Qaida apparently alive and well)
Quote:
If there is a way to minimalize casualties I am all for that. I would love an assassination attempt but from my understanding Saddam is a very hard target to hit in his own police state…not to mention he literally has impersonator type people that look like around so as to make it hard to find the “real” Saddam.
Assassination, or international pressure, both of which don't seem to be viable options right now. It's a shame too, because those are the 2 best options IMO.
____________
Since when do you type signatures?
"This win by the Panthers in Week 1 bodes well for the rest of the season." - Me last year
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 03:44 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 28 Aug 2002
|
Abazagaroth
You are obviously a learned man and made some thoughtful statements, but I will have to take issue about what I understand from some of your comments regarding Christianity and the USA.
1. As you mentioned the nation was basically initially populated by Christians fleeing persecution.
2. Most of the Founding Fathers were in fact believers in God if not Christians. Below I will specifically address two of the most controversial that you mentioned
3. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were founded upon the Judeo Christian world view. Some quotes:
“All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”
“appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”
“A firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”
4. Benjamin Franklin granted was quite a worldly man, but a basic belief in God would seem undeniable according to his own words:
“We had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor… and have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we no longer need His assistance?”
5. Thomas Jefferson: Admittedly his belief system vexed from Deism to Christianity but a basic belief in God would appear undeniable according to his own statements.
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever”
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God?”
On a side note…the Pilgrims were not pursing a freedom from religion. They were fleeing from an enforced governmented mandated religion. That is a big difference. If they were seeking as you say a “freedom *from* religion” they would not of been so vigorously and courageously pursing their own Christian beliefs.
Taxes
Yeah I appreciate the tax deduction...but that is not the same as a refund...if give 10 grand a year the government isn't going to give me 10 grand back of my taxes.
I guess one question I always wonder for those left of the middle regarding taxes. How much is enough? Where does it ever end or does it never end till we become a socialist or communist country? What is the top federal tax rate....like 36-39%...and that isn't even including state tax, gas tax, utility tax, death tax, land tax etc, etc. Compared to our beginnings as a nation our rate of taxation has become outrageous...where will it stop?
I am not anti-tax...I do think there needs to be tax for common defense, etc. But it seems every year they find a new revenue source...and this revunue source is forced not voluntary....take even the "sin tax" of cigarettes....they now tax that at like what in some states...like at least 300% of the cigarette's value....things are just out of control IMO.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 04:11 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 28 Aug 2002
|
DonGio
I don’t know?….what you call "Operation-please-rat-out-your-neighbor" use to be called being a caring decent citizen. I long for the return of the days when people actually cared for not just themselves but also the community and the nation. Reporting suspicious or negative behavior benefits the safety of the community. Now days it just seems like too many people are willing to look the other way…this self-centeredness leads to a breakdown of the growth and security of all.
As a conservative and a Christian I have wrestled with the death penalty. I have found it is in no way an easy issue upon which to take a strong stand. But I think it might prove helpful that many times the verses you are quoting seem to apply to the individual (thus pronouns such as “you” are used) and not to government (his audience at the time was the “common” people following him around to hear him speak versus say Herod or some other government official). Also some theologists note that the Sermon on the Mount is for another dispensation….I don’t necessarily agree with that…but it is a common belief among some.
Stepping aside from a philosophical and theological perspective…personally I find it much easier to support the death of a person once I hear of the atrocious and cruel way they took another persons life.
Just recently out here in California a man was convicted of possessing child porn, kidnapping an 8 year old, and killing her. One can only imagine what that innocent child endured before her tragic death.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 06:02 AM |
|
|
Some answers
As I calmly reflect on the thread topic and the rhetoric that has been used the answers suddenly appear quite simple.
First lets look at some facts
Is Bush crazy?
Crazy….well by that I guess we are using jargon to mean does the person have a mental/emotional disorder. Well even a layperson can quickly admit that No Bush is not crazy. As a psychotherapist I could turn to more formal diagnostic probe of the DSM IV and quickly observe that he does not qualify for any diagnosis save probably Alcohol Dependence, In Remission.
Is Bush uneducated?
Well here we would again have to say No as he graduated from both Yale and Harvard.
Is Bush an idiot?
Here again we see jargon….the word is the old form of what we now call mentally retarded. Since it is obvious that he does not have an IQ below 70 we would have to state that No he not an idiot.
Is Bush unintelligent?
It wouldn’t take long for the objective observer to quickly deduce that Bush is of course intelligent (I recognize that there are many forms of intelligence but I am referring to it in its traditional sense of the word). No unintelligent person could be a very successful business man, become elected to high states in the government, and graduate from such prestigious universities as already mentioned. Also I think it bears mention that many people confuse articulate with intelligence. Bush is not the most articulate president we have had. But I would argue that most people who have any experience in the general population would be the first to say that they have met many people who aren’t the most persuasively articulate people in the world but still highly intelligent.
Is Bush a poor leader?
With between 75-89% of American’s approving his performance in the last year I think it can easily be judged that he is a capable leader. His response to the horrific 9/11 incident has brought many people comfort and pride in the midst of very uncertain times for the average American. Furthermore I would argue that a truly effective leader is one who knows how to select a strong team of advisors. To delegate and rely on insightful advice is the hallmark of a wise leader. The almost undisputed fact that Bush has selected an extremely intelligent, capable, and well thought of team would point towards leadership.
So there we have it….Bush is a sane, educated, intelligent leader.
Now to some opinions
Is Bush good?
I would argue that to the objective observer they could quickly comprehend that Bush has a decent heart. Much the same as I can admit as much as I despised President Carter’s policies I can see that he is a very good man. A perfect president…of course not.
Is Bush honest?
Closely related to goodness. I think most people would agree that someone is considered honest until they are found in a blatant and intentional lie. Since there are no such incidents to my understanding then I would conclude he is honest.
Does Bush care?
Again closely related to goodness. I think anyone who has observed Bush in the public setting would have to notice that he is a compassionate man.
When one looks at his charity giving, positions about immigration and education, his faith, and his love for his family this seem to point towards a man who cares. His politics could always be seen as a “compassionate conservative”…before the PR firms came up with the catchy title.
So to me Bush is also a good, honest, caring, and imperfect person.
I guess I am amazed at how quickly adults, including myself, regress into hyperbole, insults, and arrogant competition. In my opinion I guess an adult topic would have been stated “do you agree or disagree with President Bush’s policies”.
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 11:33 AM |
|
|
okay time for a uninformed post :)
I think bush has no reason to be the president(commander and chief) of the United States.. hes too trigger happy.
RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS
can we say zealots?
how the hell u think the crusades of old got started? idiots like bush thats how. yes lets burn the heretics because they are wrong and we are right and good......
define good .... does not exist in politics
but i gotta admit bush does a good job pacifying the people even if threatens peace lol good pr people on his side 
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 11:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
DonGio
I don’t know?….what you call "Operation-please-rat-out-your-neighbor" use to be called being a caring decent citizen. I long for the return of the days when people actually cared for not just themselves but also the community and the nation. Reporting suspicious or negative behavior benefits the safety of the community. Now days it just seems like too many people are willing to look the other way…this self-centeredness leads to a breakdown of the growth and security of all.
I disagree. I think this reeks of paranoia and will cultivate suspiscion and hostility on a grand scale. It's like encouraging neighbors to mistrust and spy on eachother. Could turn into a modern witch process.
Quote:
Also some theologists note that the Sermon on the Mount is for another dispensation….
I am afraid my proficiency with the english language leaves me stranded here... would you care to explain what another dispensation means?
Quote:
Stepping aside from a philosophical and theological perspective…personally I find it much easier to support the death of a person once I hear of the atrocious and cruel way they took another persons life.
But should sentence be pronounced in an affectous state of mind? With the want for vengeance in one's heart?
Quote:
Just recently out here in California a man was convicted of possessing child porn, kidnapping an 8 year old, and killing her. One can only imagine what that innocent child endured before her tragic death.
That's horrible. The question, in my opinion, is whether killing this man is the best and most efficient way to ensure something like this doesn't happen again. From the sound of it, this man must be mentally ill. Is the best way to punish him so severly that it will scare others away from copying him, or should one look into the circumstances in this man's life. Was there something in his past that could explain this (I'm speaking on a general level now, not about this particular case), did he lack for something fundamental in childhood or whatever, can we learn how to prevent further tragedies by ensuring that society improves in the relevant areas?
Ok, I know this is an extremely hypothetical question, but just to clarify my point: If you had to choose between punishing/executing this man for his illdeeds or preventing two more similar cases, what would it be?
As I said, not very likely dilemma, but it serves to put the focus of legislation where it should be; at the purpose.
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 12:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
DonGio
I don’t know?….what you call "Operation-please-rat-out-your-neighbor" use to be called being a caring decent citizen. I long for the return of the days when people actually cared for not just themselves but also the community and the nation. Reporting suspicious or negative behavior benefits the safety of the community. Now days it just seems like too many people are willing to look the other way…this self-centeredness leads to a breakdown of the growth and security of all.
I disagree. I think this reeks of paranoia and will cultivate suspiscion and hostility on a grand scale. It's like encouraging neighbors to mistrust and spy on eachother. Could turn into a modern witch process.
The Stazi did the same in old communist Eastern Germany. In Belgium, one minister has tried to install the same rule, even before 11/9. Completly failed. To go back on topic, if there still was a strong communist world, not a single advisor would come up with such an idea. It would give the people that they're in a police state, not in the Free world. Now 11/9, how catastrophic it is, is a blessing from heaven for Bush. He now sees a reason to test his allies, and to come up with the most strange of rules- this one for exemple. Also, he has profiled himself in that way the American people are trusting Bush. Imagine what it was like if 11/9 didn't happen. Would so many people support Bush? Would he have ANY support to attack the Iraqi? Would his sabotaging activitys (regarding conferences, International Court of Law) been ignored like they are now?
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted August 28, 2002 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PC: You seem like a person fueled by anger and hatred. A couple of things: Have you given any thought to the purpose of laws, legislation and penalizing systems? Is it to punish those who have done wrong, to prevent further wrongs, or to give victims "justice"? If you answer a), why? Does the punishment of the wrongdoer right anything? If he is pained, does that level some cosmic scale of justice?
I don't know where you're heading with this. Are you saying that we shouldn't punish criminals? And of course it doesn't right anything, but we must punish crimes. Not to right anything, but to discourage others.
Quote:
And if you answer c), please tell me you're joking. That is truly ego-centric, and not constructive in any way whatsoever. Does the word sharia ring a bell?
Why does everything have to be constructive and make sense? If someone murderered one of your relatives in cold blood just for spare change in their pocket, I bet you'd be the first one to scream for death penalty.
As for executing innocent people, its a risk, yes. But IMO we should make that sacrifice in order to maintain order in our society.
____________
If I were a banana and you were a monkey, would you eat me?
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 28, 2002 11:59 PM |
|
|
Dargon the most important question is:
Is Bush right to attack Iraq?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 29, 2002 12:23 AM |
|
|
you should be able to geuss that arachnid, Dargon, for all his good points seems to BE GW Bush!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
