I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore
POSTED BY: JCKnife
UPDATED: Thursday, August 17, 2023 17:53
VIEWED: 13532
PAGE 3 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have a problem with the "specifically it's about valuing children's lives more dearly" part.
...
I feel the same outrage, but Id sure like to hear how you can value kids more than anyone else.
A couple of reasons come to mind.
1. Children can't protect themselves, so it has traditionally been every adult's responsibility to provide them with protection. Defense of offspring is pretty much biologically hardwired into not only humans, but most animals. The betrayal of this accepted societal and biological norm by child abusers is considered more heinous than a similar crime against an adult.
2. Children are our immortality...our link to the future. To take or damage a child's life is to destroy this future before it has a chance to happen.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have a problem with the "specifically it's about valuing children's lives more dearly" part.
Aren't all lives equal?? It seems we get into trouble philosophically/ intellectually/ morally/ rhetorically/ religiously ("What part about 'Thou shall not kill' don't you understand?") when we start to parse out people's relative "value".
...and just to answer the "all lives equal" question - not to me. For example, the life of an armed housebreaker is not worth as much to me as my wife's life, or mine. I would not risk our lives by giving that person the chance to take them, even if it meant killing them. People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).
Is an Adolf Hitler worth as much as a Mother Theresa? Uday and Qusay Hussein as much as Orville and Wilbur Wright? Not in my book. People are the sum of their actions. Some lose a lot of points by what they do.
BTW, I have heard several sources state, and agree, that the correct interpretation of "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not murder".
Edit: And although I believe that we are all "endowed by our creator (or whatever's cranking)" with the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I also believe that individuals can squander that endowment by their actions. The converse of rights is responsibilities. Fail badly enough in your responsibilities to your fellows, and your rights are lost.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lemme see - did Jesus not say that anyone can love someone who's good to you, but to be a follower, you must also love those who harm you?
And though he knew he had to die to fulfill his destiny, did he not ask his father to forgive those who killed him? He could have just snickered and though - you have no idea, you'll get yours soon enough. But to pray for them to be forgiven - wasn't he going out of his way just a tad?
That's the problem with popular Christianity, it's a buffet of beliefs. Some old testament, some gospel, some supersition. Some'a vengeance, some'a the 10 commandments, none'a the love everyone crap.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, sure, in situations of self-defense where it apears that one life or another is about to be lost, I know whose life I want to preserve. But when you have someone convicted and jailed, it's not a case of self-defense. I don't think we should be so comfortable dealing death because of what we think we "know" about someone's motivations, guilt, or worth. Aside fomr the people how have been convicted in error, let's look at some infamous murders...
What about Andrea Yates? She drowned five of her own children. Was she sane? Well, she was in touch with reality enough to complete the task. On the other hand, she apparently suffered from repeated bouts of post-partum depression that required her to take anti-psychotics. (And BTW, knowing her history of ppd, whose brilliant idea was it to have that many kids in the first place? Her husband's!)
The there is the fact that most of the people on death row are brain damaged. Beaten as kids, suffering from fetal acohol syndrome, often sexually abused, they have lower IQs and poor impulse control. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=432
What about the kids who are just born angry? New Zealand is doing a large-scale longitudinal landmark study that shbows that many of the kids identified as early as four years old as having the potential for criminal behavior do, in fact, go on to become violent criminals.
Uday and Qusay. Likely, if they had not been sons of a violent, paranoid, and extremely powerful father who forced them into his mold, they likely would have grown up to be pretty decent people.
When you start to look at the CAUSES of horrific behavior, it becomes less a question of revenge and punishment, more a question of (1) protecting society (2) treating if possible (3) preventing the development of criminality. Seems like we would go a lot farther long those lines than grabbing a noose.
Oh, and by the way, that notion that animals "instinctively" protect the young and helpless is hogwash. It never has been deomstrated in animals or in people. In fact, the typical mammalian instinct to threats like starvation is to dump the kids. The reason is that adults, if they survive, can go on to have more young, but that if the adults die trying to save the young then they will ALL die. It's a nice thing to tell ourselves about ourselves, but it's biologically counterproductive and not part of human history.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Lemme see - did Jesus not say that anyone can love someone who's good to you, but to be a follower, you must also love those who harm you?
And though he knew he had to die to fulfill his destiny, did he not ask his father to forgive those who killed him? He could have just snickered and though - you have no idea, you'll get yours soon enough. But to pray for them to be forgiven - wasn't he going out of his way just a tad?
That's the problem with popular Christianity, it's a buffet of beliefs. Some old testament, some gospel, some supersition. Some'a vengeance, some'a the 10 commandments, none'a the love everyone crap.
Not being much of a Christian, I consider the Commandments more "guidelines". I might have sympathy (if not love) for someone I shot in defense of my family, but that wouldn't stop me.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't find your position either in the new testament or in the constitution. You must be making it up as you go along. You state your notions in such as general way, like they are 'truth' for the US to live by. It's nice to know you're comfortable with the idea of imposing your little notions on society, to the point of taking lives.
Quote:
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).
Is an Adolf Hitler worth as much as a Mother Theresa? Uday and Qusay Hussein as much as Orville and Wilbur Wright? Not in my book. People are the sum of their actions. Some lose a lot of points by what they do.
BTW, I have heard several sources state, and agree, that the correct interpretation of "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not murder".
Edit: And although I believe that we are all "endowed by our creator (or whatever's cranking)" with the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I also believe that individuals can squander that endowment by their actions. The converse of rights is responsibilities. Fail badly enough in your responsibilities to your fellows, and your rights are lost.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, sure, in situations of self-defense where it apears that one life or another is about to be lost, I know whose life I want to preserve. But when you have someone convicted and jailed, it's not a case of self-defense. I don't think we should be so comfortable dealing death because of what we think we "know" about someone's motivations, guilt, or worth. Aside fomr the people how have been convicted in error, let's look at some infamous murders...
What about Andrea Yates? She drowned five of her own children. Was she sane? Well, she was in touch with reality enough to complete the task. On the other hand, she apparently suffered from repeated bouts of post-partum depression that required her to take anti-psychotics. (And BTW, knowing her history of ppd, whose brilliant idea was it to have that many kids in the first place? Her husband's!)
The there is the fact that most of the people on death row are brain damaged. Beaten as kids, suffering from fetal acohol syndrome, often sexually abused, they have lower IQs and poor impulse control. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=432
What about the kids who are just born angry? New Zealand is doing a large-scale longitudinal landmark study that shbows that many of the kids identified as early as four years old as having the potential for criminal behavior do, in fact, go on to become violent criminals.
Uday and Qusay. Likely, if they had not been sons of a violent, paranoid, and extremely powerful father who forced them into his mold, they likely would have grown up to be pretty decent people.
When you start to look at the CAUSES of horrific behavior, it becomes less a question of revenge and punishment, more a question of (1) protecting society (2) treating if possible (3) preventing the development of criminality. Seems like we would go a lot farther long those lines than grabbing a noose.
The death penalty doesn't work all that well, for several reasons. But the alternatives are a lot more folks in for life, or hoping that we don't find out we didn't cure them when they get out and kill someone else. Maybe we could just ship them all to Iraq and let them go. (see Geezer's tongue firmly in cheek). Hussein fils were responsible for their actions, regardless of their antecedents, and got what they deserved.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and by the way, that notion that animals "instinctively" protect the young and helpless is hogwash. It never has been deomstrated in animals or in people. In fact, the typical mammalian instinct to threats like starvation is to dump the kids. The reason is that adults, if they survive, can go on to have more young, but that if the adults die trying to save the young then they will ALL die. It's a nice thing to tell ourselves about ourselves, but it's biologically counterproductive and not part of human history.
I take it you've never gotten too near a blue jay nest when there are chicks in it. A half pound bird that will attack a human 300 times its size is definately trying to protect its young.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't find your position either in the new testament or in the constitution. You must be making it up as you go along. You state your notions in such as general way, like they are 'truth' for the US to live by. It's nice to know you're comfortable with the idea of imposing your little notions on society, to the point of taking lives.
The right of self-defense predates both the New Testament and the Constitution. It is codified in pretty much every state's body of law. Self-defense is usually considered valid if you reasonably consider your life, or the life of someone you are responsible for, to be in immediate danger from the actions of another. People who might take an unprovoked action that threatens anothers life, such as armed robbery, should be aware that their actions could have consequences.
If you don't wish to defend yourself - if you believe that the life of someone who would casually kill you or yours in the commission of a crime is worth more than you own- it's your life to do with as you wish. I impose nothing on you.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and by the way, that notion that animals "instinctively" protect the young and helpless is hogwash. It never has been deomstrated in animals or in people. In fact, the typical mammalian instinct to threats like starvation is to dump the kids. The reason is that adults, if they survive, can go on to have more young, but that if the adults die trying to save the young then they will ALL die. It's a nice thing to tell ourselves about ourselves, but it's biologically counterproductive and not part of human history.
I take it you've never gotten too near a blue jay nest when there are chicks in it. A half pound bird that will attack a human 300 times its size is definately trying to protect its young.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I feel a 'birds are not mammals' arguement coming, but I may have just headed that off.
I was going to inject this same example but you beat me to it. There is a bird that attacks me regularly while I mow the lawn. Starvation has little to do with the topic here, protection of children(young ones) does and I have seen enough Wild Kingdom with Marlin Perkins to know SignyM is off on this one. The children are our future however, I agree completely with Hardware and the excessive use of the excuse "for the children". It seems to go along the same lines as 'Zero Tolerance'. Don't even get me started.ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't find your position either in the new testament or in the constitution. You must be making it up as you go along. You state your notions in such as general way, like they are 'truth' for the US to live by. It's nice to know you're comfortable with the idea of imposing your little notions on society, to the point of taking lives.
The right of self-defense predates both the New Testament and the Constitution. It is codified in pretty much every state's body of law. Self-defense is usually considered valid if you reasonably consider your life, or the life of someone you are responsible for, to be in immediate danger from the actions of another. People who might take an unprovoked action that threatens anothers life, such as armed robbery, should be aware that their actions could have consequences.
If you don't wish to defend yourself - if you believe that the life of someone who would casually kill you or yours in the commission of a crime is worth more than you own- it's your life to do with as you wish. I impose nothing on you.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Well said.
ByteTheBullet (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME