|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
A time to live and a time to die? | from Falcon - Thursday, March 27, 2008
accessed 1005 times A topic I started debating the other night and would like to finish... Justice has protected the guilty and failed the innocent. The guilty are now protected under the politically correct banner of ‘Human Rights’. They have the right to roam this planet without serious consequence, as long as they have the money and the power to pay off enough people. They have the right to spend a few perfunctory years in a cell while they “contemplate” their crime, or rather, plan how to get away with the next one once they are released. Meanwhile, they have irredeemably damaged lives, and the consequences of their actions has indefinite ripple effects on generations to come. A paedophile who molests a small child and spends 10 years in prison, will be released without actually being cured of their sickness, but much wiser about how to prevent being caught the next time around. Meanwhile, the child they have abused grows up to inflict harm on themselves and those around them, continuing the cycle on their child and their child’s child and on it goes.
Is there a solution, or is society, for lack of a better word, fucked? We are quick to rail on the death penalty and it could be argued that because the justice system is imperfect, there will always be innocents who will be wrongly implicated. This may be true, but what is worse? To allow those who cannot be reformed, who given the chance will continue to harm and destroy human lives, to continue on this planet and in society, or to exterminate them and potentially a small number of innocents with them? Is one innocent life worth 100 guilty? This question is not popular discussion. It is too uncomfortable to question our humanity, our morality, our mortality.
Let’s take the discussion to the root of the problem, the chicken with the egg, so to speak. The parents. Life begins because of two people, whose lives began with two people and so on and so forth. If the child was neglected and failed to form human connection or attachment, they can grow to be a psychopath lacking emotion or connection to human society. A child is abused by a parent, they can inflict similar abuse upon their child, continuing the cycle. But where does it start and where does it end? It could be argued that those parents who damage their children were themselves damaged. Are they then to blame? When is a person old enough to account for their actions, or can we now write everything off to “childhood trauma”, and thus excuse all actions and consequences?
Here’s another question, is there a time when it is right to kill? If a person is irrevocably damaged that they can only inflict harm on themselves and those around them, when they have reached the point that they can no longer be helped, when there is no longer a side of them that can be reasoned with, appealed to, when their existence on this planet becomes entirely destructive in purpose, is there a reason that they should continue to exist? Should we continue to feel any kind of moral compunction to keep them alive, when our own survival instincts should demand that we end their life before they end ours? What if they were harmed and abused as children? Should their actions be justified, and excused because of a “rough childhood”? Should their parents, or whoever was responsible for damaging them be given the same sentence, and what if the parents of their parents abused them? How far can we take it, how far does it go and when does it stop, or does it ever?
So back to the question, is there a time to kill? What if some kind of daredevil assassin existed who killed solely those people who harm innocent and defenceless children? If this assassin killed in order to ensure the next generation of children grew up safe from the predators; would they be justified in killing? If so, can society then justify killing these same people who cannot be rehabilitated? Continuing the line of thought, how can we determine who can and cannot be reformed? Should we consider age, background, IQ? Frankly, it is nearly impossible to set any kind of clear standard, because the diversity of human kind means that the notion of a ‘final solution’ is in itself a formal contradiction.
It seems there is no simple answer, only more questions. The more I think about it, the more my head goes round and round and the more pissed off I become. Society, as I see it, has failed in more respects than it has found solutions, and no institution has demonstrated this more clearly than the justice system. However, the justice system is run by humans, and therein lies the problem, the root of all evil and also the source of redemption—ourselves. The greatest achievement of evolution and the most despicable. There are times when I want to shout at the triumphs of mankind and other times when I want to wash humanity off me like a bad smell. The power of life and death rests with us. Who determines who lives and who dies? We do. There are laws to prevent random murder, but then, random murder happens anyway, and it seems to me that it is the wrong people being killed and the wrong people who are allowed to live.
This is not a call to vigilantism, btw, it is simply a subject that I'm sure many of us have thought of, esp. in line with what Ricky did. Though I don't condone murder and I don't condone the death penalty, I thought it would be interesting to discuss. I know every time I hear of some pervert who has sexually molested babies, I think, 'why is this man allowed to live? Clearly anyone who preys on an innocent and defenseless baby is a monster and has crossed the boundary of what makes us human!' But then again, what does make us human? What is it to be 'human'? |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from DeeJay
Monday, March 31, 2008 - 23:11
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I think the system is flawed and will always be so. All we can strive for is that some individuals like you will be constantly driven by the need to better and perfect the functions and morals needed to keep society at large moving. Most people can not fathom all that is involved in governing and protecting. I trust that there are enough people dedicated to making things right, that I can continue my own pursuits of fulfillment.
I support most penalties and laws because the peace of mind and freedom of millions of innocents has to come at some price. Is the life of one innocent worth 100 others. Sometimes, absolutely. I hate those movies where there's some big space disaster or something and the captain endangers the life of the whole crew to save the one person who didn't follow his orders to find shelter in the first place. You don't gamble everyone else's life on one person's innocence or possible rehabiliation. He/She had a choice. We didn't. Whatever factors caused him/her to commit a crime, he/she was still afforded a choice. A choice that he/she is not affording to others by possibly placing them in harm's way.
I think you cross the line, you pay. It's fairly simple.
(reply to this comment)
| from cheeks
Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 14:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
I read the article yesterday and really didn't have time to sit down and put my thoughts into words. I am still not sure how to, so I am going to let it all jumble out and go from there.
I am a very huge supporter of the death penalty. I don't think it is used often enough and I really don't give a crap if it hurts. After all they certainly didn't give their victims that sort of consideration. Having said that, I also believe in everyones right to a fair trial esp if there is little evidence that supports the polices theory on whodunnit.
I do not for one single second support the notion that because a person was abused they become abusers. You are who you choose to be. It is not an illness it is a choice. It is also my opinion that child molesters have no place in society, we simply cannot allow them to exist among us. I think we should find an island and ship them all there and let them farm or something. Make them productive members of society.
I really think this is what we need to do with all our prison systems teach them a skill so when they come out they can be productive members of society. Make them work while they are in there and not just making license plates. We need to teach them anger management skills, parenting skills and everything else that they did not learn or chose to ignore growing up.
Vigilante justice is not the answer having tougher laws and crueler punishments is. Castration comes to mind.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Samuel
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 06:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
The problem with castration is you're assuming that all predators are male. Over the past few years in my area, there have been several stories in the news about teachers (mostly female) having sex with students. I remember watching one of these "Catch a Predator" shows on TV and one person had written in and asked if there was a reason why there are never female predators showing up at the decoy houses. The answer given was that female preadtors prefer to know their victims.
Anyway, back to the news. There's been Debra La Fave whom you probably know about, Stephanie Ragusa, Mary Jo Spack, Christina Butler, and Jaymee Wallace. I mean, obviously we've got a problem, and how is castration going to work with this? They need jail and rehabilitation. Otherwise they'll just get out and offend again.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/schools/2008/03/sex-teachers-an.html
The article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14499056/
And an interview with Debra LaFave, which I found interesting. And before you get started on it, I know, givin g the girl probation was crazy. But what can you do? The kid didn't want to testify, and without that they didn't have much other evidence so they made a deal.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 07:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Alright Sam, I could be alone in this feeling, but consensual sex with an underage 14-17 year old, is vastly incomparable to the rape of baby - 6 year old. Most boys are experimenting with sex at that age anyhow. Not that I in any way agree with it, but you cannot even compare the two in severity or punishment. I would gladly see one of these monsters who rape babies taken off this planet, and yes, at very least chemically castrated. If a woman were a part of such rape, I would ascribe the very same harsh punishment to her as well. Don't make this a sexist thing, as it is not. If you are going to try and make an argument, at least try to keep it relevant.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 14:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I dunno, I'm not sure that chemical castration for the rape of a baby or young child would be the most pertinent punishment for a woman. Mainly because I doubt that testosterone (or any of the other 'male' hormones - I'm really not clued up on all that biological stuff) would be the most likely reason for that rape having been carried out. IMO a woman would most likely have had some other primary motivations than sexual gratification, and chemical castration probably wouldn't eliminate those. While I believe that hormones are not the main motivation for men to commit sexual assaults on children either (my opinion being that the motivations are almost certainly psychological-emotional rather than wholly biological), removing the sexual drive from the male would at least make it unlikely that he would reoffend. However the same can't necessarily be said for a woman in a comparable case, seeing as sexual appetite is, IMO, much more a psychological issue with women as opposed to biologically driven.
*Disclaimer: I know very little about human biology and I realise that my opinions are unlearned. If anyone knows more than me or has read relevant research, and wants to bother to set me straight, I'd like to be educated. Also, I use terms such as 'biologically' very loosely and mainly to (hopefully) make myself reasonably understood.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From murasaki
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 19:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually chemical castration stops the release of sex hormones, which in addition to the inability to reproduce would cause loss of libido and sexual desire. I'm not certain if this would disable the ability of women to climax, but in most cases it keeps men from getting an erection and subsequently disables climax. Reducing testosterone, the main male sex hormone, also decreases aggressiveness and violent tendencies. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Monday, March 31, 2008, 03:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
No one knows for sure. I think there are two main types of abusers. Those who were abused themselves and unfortunately try to deal with how they suffered by inflincting that same pain on someone else, probably as an attempt at feeling in control, and those who were 'frozen' in an early phase of emotional and sexual development (possibly due to abuse or some trauma) so that while they are adults and have adult sexual needs they truly relate better to children on an emotional level and because they themselves have sexual urges, they project those same needs onto children and really believe that the child wants it and is emotionally able to handle it.
As far as the argument for or against castration, the question, really, is does someone who raped a child (for the purpose of this argument I'm not including all types of sexual abuse) DESERVE (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From vix
Monday, March 31, 2008, 04:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here goes the (hopefully) slightly more clearly written version:
I think there are three main types of abusers, the first being those who were abused themselves and unfortunately try to deal with how they suffered by inflicting that same pain on someone else, probably as an attempt at feeling in control or due to being so messed up by their own experiences that they then develop that cruel streak you describe. The second being the sociopathic individual, and the third being the individual who was 'frozen' in an early phase of emotional and sexual development (again possibly due to abuse or some trauma) so that while they are adults and have adult sexual needs they truly relate better to children on an emotional level and because they themselves have sexual urges, they project those same needs onto children and really believe that the child wants it and is emotionally able to handle it.
As far as the argument for or against castration, the question, really, is does someone who raped a child (for the purpose of this argument I'm not including all types of sexual abuse) deserve a chance at rehabilitation or have they lost their right to a full and normal life? Without knowing why exactly an individual becomes an abuser, it's difficult to say.
My own opinion is that until it's proven that rehabilitation actually works (i'm not convinced it would, mainly because I think once a person's sexual appetite - by which I also mean all psychological motivations for the same - has been shaped it's almost impossible to change it) I would worry that the person has not actually really changed at all but has just managed to temporarily suppress his or her urges, and so if our main concern is with protecting the vulnerable there are really only two ways to go, lifelong imprisonment being one, and castration being the other.
Castration does work but you're right in that in the cases that I know about, some of the individuals still felt the psychological urge and were able to get private injections to counteract the loss of hormones, and subsequently reoffended. Keeping a sex offenders list might prevent some from getting their hands on hormone replacements, but of course there's no way anyone would actually be able to supervise to the point of absolute assurance. For this reason I feel lifelong imprisonment is the safer option, although I also think that's almost far too lenient. Why should that person have any life at all after potentially ruining that of one or more utterly defenseless children? After all, serious trauma like that will usually stay with the victims for life.
Big questions. I really prefer not to think about it too much, seeing as there is little chance that there will ever be a straightforward solution'.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From rainy
Monday, March 31, 2008, 04:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
And just thinking about this further, wouldn't there be people who were attracted to children, and nothing was particularly wrong with them mentally and emotionally? I'm theorising that they just, as products of our society which idolises youth and beauty, sexualises everything, and promotes hedonism and self gratification have simply internalised these messages and taken them too far? Perhaps they just grew up taking everything they wanted regardless of the consequences.
So this I would see as just a straight out crime. That would be a clear arguement for punishment rather than rehabilitation. There's no deep damage done to this person, they just saw something they liked and took it, without thought to what they were doing to a small person's entire life. Do you think that's possible, or is it always a result of some neurosis or psychopathy?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Monday, March 31, 2008, 04:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not sure. Certainly youth and vitality is attractive from an evolutionary perspective, but only to an extent. There's no evolutionary advantage to sex with a child, since that child can't reproduce anyway. But what you say about societal sexualisation of pre teen children and the culture of absolute entitlement to self-gratification does make a certain sense. I personally still think that there is has to be some serious psychological impairment for an adult to feel strong sexual urges toward a child, and possibly more importantly to actually act on them, but that's just my unlearned opinion.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From DeeJay
Monday, March 31, 2008, 22:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree. Besides, whatever abuses or psychological impairment a person may suffer growing up, there are plenty of chances for it to be kept in check. Humans tend toward security in conformity. That's why we go to school. That's why we have friends. That's why we have society at large constantly telling us what is and isn't acceptable. Someone may feel differently, but I can't help but think at some point they know they are crossing a line. Even if it's just a line drawn by the actions and opinions of others.
Like murder, it's a choice at one point to retreat, or to explore whatever is fueling either your curiousity or your drive for self-gratification.
On your above point though Vix. It could be deducted from your statement that since there is no evolutionary advantage to gay sex, is that it too is also a choice as opposed to natural, or at least has some sort of psychological implications. Like you I am unlearned, so I'm asking more than saying.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Monday, April 07, 2008, 15:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
My only point in bringing up the evolutionary perspective was that there is no biological imperative toward sexual interaction with an individual who is not sexually mature. With regards to homosexuality, I do believe (and I'll continue to hold this opinion unless science conclusively finds otherwise) that there probably are many cases where an individual's sexual orientaton is not dictated by genetics or biology. However that doesn't mean that the given individual 'chooses' to be gay, since much of the human personality is unconsciously driven. 'Dictated by nature' or 'going against nature' are not in and of themselves argument enough for or against a given act or behaviour, seeing as humanity has progressed to such an extent that modification of one's primal urges and motivations becomes an important consideration with respect to any issue touching on morality.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From DeeJay
Monday, April 07, 2008, 23:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well said. I think you're right. I used to think that given the instinctual nature of sex (being to reproduce), being gay was a lifestyle choice. Like you I also don't believe that it is necessarily genetically or biologically dictated. But you bring up a good point. So much of a person's personality is unconciously or subconciously driven (why do I keep quoting you. I guess it's cause you've said it so well, I don't quite know how else to put it. heh.) that who's to say that a person has any more choice about it than others do about being, let's say, a perfectionist. It's just another personality trait that they can't explain or control. I still hold to the belief that for some it is still a lifestyle choice though. Maybe....dunno really. Ha. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From vix
Monday, March 31, 2008, 04:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, I do actually think there were two seperate kinds in the family, although obviously as in any area to do with psychology, there is a lot of crossover. I think the first comprised of all three of the kinds I described above (that would include all the definite creeps), and the other comprised of very weak individuals who went along with whatever was happening simply as a result of being in the cult.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 15:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, it stops them from reproducing. I still think it should be done in addition to jail time. But rehabilitation is the most important thing. That is what upsets me the most about Debra LaFave's case. She was raped as a child. She, in return, sexually abused a student. It's a vicious cycle. Now if she was in jail the system would atleast have a chance at rehabilitating her, but she was given probation instead. How is that going to rehabilitate her? I also think it says a lot about the double standard in the media. What, just because she's pretty she should get off easy? If it was a guy, do you honestly think he would have gotten probation? Even Judge Cashman in Vermont gave the predator that had molested a 6 year old girl for FOUR YEARS 60 days in jail!(reply to this comment) |
| | From fragiletiger
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 15:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just a thought- seeing as most rapes/molestations are perpetrated through emotions other then lust (i.e.: a sense of powerlessness, having been abused themselves and continuing the cycle, a mental illness) wouldn’t castration exacerbate the problem?
Take a guy who was abused as a child, so too reclaim a sense of power he abuses children, and then you castrate him, fuelling those feelings of powerlessness, do you not think that there’s a good possibility that he will now turn into a killer who tortures his victims, in an effort to reclaim the power?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Monday, March 31, 2008, 03:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's exactly what I was thinking. He might not be a rapist but he'd still be a child abuser. I had that exact same feeling, that they'd be angry they couldn't have real sex anymore and take it out on little children. And Samuel, "at least in prison she could be rehabilitated?" Do you know absolutely nothing? Prisons are criminal factories! Perhaps in a psych ward a person could be rehabilitated, but not in prison!(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Saturday, March 29, 2008, 16:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Cheeks, if you begin introducing the death penalty and castration for child molestation, think for a minute about the thousands of young men who are imprisoned for rape in America because the boyfriend is 19 and the girlfriend is 17 or whatever. I think that harsh penalties are always going to be misapplied in your country until this conservative Christian idea of morals is completely overhauled and common sense begins to reign. Who knows, they might even begin imprisoning women for abortion if things go that way? It's rather frightening.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From afflick
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 13:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
...not that your Fundie friends don't keep trying.
One example, HB 1677 introduced by Virginia delegate John Cosgrove 2 years ago.
"Report of fetal death by mother; penalty. Provides that when a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the proper law-enforcement agency within 12 hours of the delivery. Violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor."
Since then, there have been a handful of other attempts but the idea of jailing women for abortions is wildly unpopular. Anti-choice politicians generally prefer the more popular tactic of jailing abortion providers.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From cheeks
Saturday, March 29, 2008, 20:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, there is a huge difference between an actual child-molester and a teenager or young adult who has sex with a teenager. I did not mean to imply in any way that we should castrate a young adult or teenager who had sex with another young adult or teenager. That is why I said child molester hoping people here would know the difference.
Morals in the States are very loosely applied which is why we have so many teenage births. While people like to go to church on Sunday they like to drink beer every other day so I don't think that is why we have the problems with misapplications of the law. Unfortunately there are no loopholes in the laws or simply not enough for judges to use common sense. The laws are the laws and that is how they are applied one size fits all, unlike real life where the shoe does not always fit.
I don't think my ideas have anything to do with my Christianity or I would be looking for some sort of forgiveness for them. I am not. Society simply has no place for a repeat or severe child molester. The punishment must fit the crime and far too often they get out only to kill next time so they don't get caught.(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 13:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course I agree and I don't think anyone sees the two as being equal crimes. My point was that the justice system over there seems (from where I am anyway) out of control. While you're still demonstrating wildly on both sides about God, and abortion, and gay rights, etc it just doesn't seem like a safe country for harsh penalties to be appropriately applied.
Did someone here say Texas is the only state left with the Death Penalty? I didn't know that and it makes me breathe easier. Thanks.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, March 30, 2008, 16:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
No. The following states have the death penalty:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From rainy
Monday, March 31, 2008, 03:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry, someone said that on another forum I was on yesterday, not this one. I was confused. And I did think they were wrong. Obviously they were. What a massive list!!! I had no idea it was more than half the states! Do you realise the USA is the only developed nation (Well officially, but I'd consider Singapore developed)that still has the Death Penalty? Only China and a couple Muslim countries kill more of their own citizens than you do!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, March 31, 2008, 06:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have no doubt that China kills more criminals than the US does. Considering that their population in over three times ours, it makes sense that they would have more criminals. We've gone over this before, rainy. Australia has about 8% the population of the USA, so of course Australia is going to have less of a crime problem. What I would like to know, is whether China and these Muslim countries kill criminals in a way that is as humane as ours? Do they use lethal injection?
In 2006 here in Florida, there was a problem with the drugs and the criminal did not die right away. You can find info about that here http://lethal-injection-florida.blogspot.com/2007/02/as-if-in-pain-notes-from-diaz-execution.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/florida-governor-suspends-all.php
Jeb Bush, Governor at the time, suspended all lethal injections until a commission submitted a report on Florida's lethal injection procedures.
After a legal battle, it was finally decided by the State Supreme Court (which leans liberal) that lethal injection was okay and was not cruel or unusual punishment unelss the person is not unconscious. http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/02/State/Lethal_method_okay_in.shtml
Jeb is the brother of George W. Bush, by the way. He is no longer the Governor.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Human Being
Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 13:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm ambivalent about the death penalty because the system is so flawed and innocents have been put to death or incarcerated unjustly. I also think that some portion of the death penalty's support and appeal in modern democratic countries has more to do with vengeance than prevention or deterrence, in which case it’s pretty hypocritical in that regard.
Many psychologists and psychiatrists are of the opinion that once a molester develops a pattern of this type of behavior, they do not change. The statistics are that a molester typically leaves behind 42-60 victims some more severely victimized than others, and will continue to hunt for victims as well as fellow perpetrators to share and acquire victims with.
There are no simple answers. Statistics give some answers to the question of whether or not people will continue to victimize and leave a path of destruction behind them. What to do is a completely different question. My opinion is that the system and society is completely inadequate in this regard, and some countries in Europe are very much ahead of the United States.
Murder is not subject to the no statute of limitations, but one may kill the innocence and soul of a child and get away with it if not apprehended or prosecuted soon enough or if the victim isn‘t strong enough to confront the abuser. In the United States we spend unfathomable amounts of money prosecuting and imprisoning non-violent drug offenders, I’ve often thought of what a fraction of that budget could do to protect children.
Understanding this is an emotional roller coaster until one understands one simple point. It’s business. Money drives far too much of what we as a society do, or fail to do. There is a fortune to be made, positions to be had, jobs to be generated, Bureaucracies to be lorded over, etc., when it comes to say, prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana smokers. In the near term (next budget cycle), there’s little incentive to politicians to set up policies that truly protect the most vulnerable.
If ever one wonders why that is, the answer is simple, money. In the United States congress, as well as in State Legislatures, every time measures for abolishing the statute of limitations for crimes against children is presented, its detractors and those lobbying against said measures are almost always insurance companies because of the potential for liability. It is a very, very sad commentary on the state of what a society actually takes action on.
While not encouraging vigilantism, if there did exist a “daredevil assassin,” who targeted those with a verifiable pattern of being murders the souls of innocent children my hat would go off to him or her. If I woke up tomorrow morning and someone had taken out some of the trash especially some of the heavy hitters (Eman Artist, Borowitch, Zerby, Pelloquin, Silas, Manuel Peruvian, and others) part of my faith in humanity would be restored.
(reply to this comment)
| from rainy
Friday, March 28, 2008 - 14:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your article came the day after a terrible ruling in Australia which illustrates your concerns perfectly: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,,23445133-661,00.html
What really makes me angry is when governments and laws are motivated by greed. A man received 9 months in prison for smashing a speed camera to pieces (costing the police department a lot of revenue) and the man who did this unthinkable crime could be out in six. I can't tell you how furious I am over this, for all Australians. WHY ISN"T OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROTECTING US BETTER THAN THIS??? Rape in particular is still not given the attention it deserves, and ridiculous arguments such as what the victim was wearing at the time are STILL being submitted in court! http://thecurvature.com/2008/03/07/bad-ass-womens-activists-of-the-week-smacking-down-rape-apologists-edition/
Yes our justice system needs help.
I'm very strongly against the Death Penalty, and I do think there must be another way. It is just still too acceptable to sexually abuse someone who is vulnerable. We have to make it no longer an option. Yes I suppose there are people who are better off dead. They no longer have a soul. But I will never support capital punishment. It has been proven not to work. Just look at the crime rates of countries that have capital punishment, the USA for example. Look at the crime rates even within the USA between states that have it and states that don't.
What we really need is judges and juries and citizens who are intelligent, wise, and empathetic. Who look at facts and look at morals. We don't need such clever lawyers, who end up perverting justice more than almost anyone else. Of course I know I'm talking a lot of rubbish. How are we going to change the world? I have no idea. But calling attention to things that are not right is the best way I know for now.
(reply to this comment)
| from nice analogy of priorities
Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I like this topic. I will comment later when I have time to write it up.
but for now
A philosophy professor stood before his class and had some items in front of him. When class began, wordlessly he picked up a large empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with rocks, rocks about 2" in diameter. He then asked the students if the jar was full? They agreed that it was.
So the professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles, of course, rolled into the open areas between the rocks. He then asked the student again if the jar was full. They agreed it was. The students laughed. The professor picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else.
"Now," said the professor, "I want you to recognize that this is your life. The rocks are the important things - your family, your partner, your health, your children - anything that is so important to you that if it were lost, you would be nearly destroyed. The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, your car. The sand is everything else. The small stuff."
"If you put the sand into the jar first, there is no room for the pebbles or the rocks. The same goes for your life. If you spend all your energy and time on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you. Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out dancing. There will always be time to go to work, clean the house, give a dinner party and fix the disposal."
"Take care of the rocks first- the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand."
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From <>
Monday, March 31, 2008, 09:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Critical interpretation--
The point is what to start filling the jar with. If you start by filling it with sand you cannot fit stones in, however if you start by filling it with water you stilll can fit stones pebbles and sand; and even though some water is displaced you will end up with nearly as much residual water as if you poured the water in afterwards. This is why water was [correctly] excluded from the story.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from shikaka
Friday, March 28, 2008 - 10:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
"what does make us human"? - Everything, and nothing. Our 'morals' and ideals are nothing more than artificial constructs that have been passed down from generation to generation. They do serve a purpose, as they allow many people to live semi-comfortable and productive lives, as opposed to prehistoric anarchy and lawlessness.
Chimpanzees do not sit and ponder "what makes me a chimpanzee?" They simply exist and do what ever they are genetically programmed to do. They have no concept of right or wrong. Morality is irrelevant to the majority of all life on this planet.
Humans are in a quandary; we have retained many of our 'baser' instincts, but supress them because of the moral majority who imposes their will upon us. 10,000 years ago, it may have been considered normal to have sex with young girls.
I personally abhor pedophilia, but looking at it objectively, without the trappings of the morals hardwired to my brain since birth, it is apparent to me that to really 'be human', one should do whatever pops into their head, unconstrained by any preconcieved notion of 'right' or 'wrong'. 'Morality' is, after all, entirely subjective.
(reply to this comment)
| From vacuous
Friday, March 28, 2008, 14:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
As we are primarily social creatures, evolution has adapted us to be 'infantile' in order to appear non aggressive and to survive in large numbers and band together in large groups to fight off and mob attack predators. Human individuals are relatively week and run no faster than a startled chicken. The process of how we select for infant like features and attributes (e.g. large eyes delicate features, playful qualities) is called 'neoteny', and is gaining in scientific interest in that it can explain everything from our hairless skin to our ridiculously swollen, flat faces and upright stance.
Peodophellia is possibly a disorder based somewhere in this?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Friday, March 28, 2008, 13:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
'Artificial constructs', or 'social constructs', rather. How about 'artificial social constructs'?
Define 'young girls', because I dare say that it was never considered normal for adults to have sex with girls under 6. Nature and the animal kingdom have sex for reproduction purposes. Therefore mature animals do not fuck their babies, simply because it goes against 'nature', because there is no real purpose for it. So are pedophiles an anomaly of nature? I would say, however, that 10,000 years ago it would have been considered normal to kill anyone who harmed you or your immediate family.
You said, "to 'be human', one should do whatever pops into their head". Isn't that more what animals do? Isn't what makes us human the fact that we think about our actions and their future consequences?
I agree that 'morality' is indeed entirely subjective, and is determined by social constructs and the 'moral majority'. That is more along the lines of what I am questioning. (reply to this comment) |
| | From shikaka
Friday, March 28, 2008, 15:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm of the opinion that at a fundamental level, humans are nothing more than glorified animals. I dont act like an animal, because that would affect my quality of life.
I daresay any creature that exclusively has sex with very young children (or offspring) is an anomaly and evolution would not normally allow it to reproduce, either by natural aging (without successful reproduction) or by violent death at the hands of it's peers.
I agree that I am slightly off topic, sorry. Perhaps a better question to ask is whether humans in their prehistoric state are 'natural humans', or whether modern earth's cultured, educated, moral inhabitants should be considered 'natural humans'.
You may be right to say that our intelligence and thus our culture and morals define us as human, but there remains an animalistic and barbaric side to human nature that I can't see past, regardless of how educated or cultured people appear to be. At any given moment, humanity is orbiting the earth in a manned spaceship, and chopping each other up with machetes. It takes very little to turn a man into an animal.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Friday, March 28, 2008, 16:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree "At any given moment, humanity is orbiting the earth in a manned spaceship, and chopping each other up with machetes. It takes very little to turn a man into an animal."
As I said, " There are times when I want to shout at the triumphs of mankind and other times when I want to wash humanity off me like a bad smell."
Sometimes there is little distinction between us and animals. (reply to this comment) |
| | From afflick
Friday, March 28, 2008, 20:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I take great solace in the randomness of life. Whenever I feel I have failed, not tried hard enough, it is very peaceful to remember my small place in the universe. Whatever we do on this planet, we are a tiny, tiny speck of the whole. The universe goes on longer and wider than we can imagine and there is a glorious restfulness in that. And yes, I am on my fourth glass of red.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From exfamily
Saturday, March 29, 2008, 12:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
To quote myself from another forum:
We are just chemical processes, biological machines, we live and die, and when we are dead it will be to us as if we never lived. Not that it will be to us as anything, as we will not exist. And then when all the people who knew you or were affected by you die, it will be as if you never existed. And eventually everyone in the world will die, and the earth will be destroyed by the sun (if we don't kill ourselves sooner); and if we haven't moved off the planet, it will be as if we never existed at all. Why them don't we just all kill ourselves now? Any pain or pleasure we experience will be as if it had never happened, just as there might have been a peasant a thousand years ago who at a certain time of day might have had a strong pain in his head or might have been having sex - it mattered to him at the time, but it no longer matters and indeed it is as id it never happened. Anything we experience now will be as if it never happened when we die - no memories, no nothing. Why do anything pleasurable if you forget about it immediately? It would be as if you never did it, because time moves on and all you are left with is the memory. You can't live "in the moment", because the moment is always the past - as I said, time is always moving, the present is always the past, and if you can't remember what just happened, it will be as if nothing happened (assuming it doesn't affect your body physically, etc). So what's the point of anyone living if we're all guaranteed to cease to exist? In the grand scheme, you are just a blip of chemical reactivity that flashes on and off in the blink of an eye - living and dying. Anything you do or experience won't matter. You could be rich and live a life of luxury, or you could be starving in a desert - ultimately, you and everyone else will die and be no more, and anything that happened in the past will be negated because there will be no one left for it to matter to.(reply to this comment) |
| | from murasaki
Friday, March 28, 2008 - 10:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're right, I don't think there are any easy answers. I'm just thankful I'm not living 100 years ago where my station in life would be solely judged my circumstances of birth. As much as we are affected by our upbringing and our parents, and as much as I'm pissed off about the way I was brought up, I'm thankful that at least I'm alive at a time in history where I have the option to try to make a better life for my own kids and not be locked into the cycle.
I think that at the end of the day it all comes down to choice and that we are responsible for our own actions. Whatever someone's past may have been, it's no excuse for perpetuating harm. As far as whether to kill someone who's past reform, how do you know if someone is beyond hope or not? Same goes with vigilantes, they're great in Marvel-universe, but things are rarely so black and white in the real world.
If someone is clearly a danger to others it stands to reason they should be separated from society, and while the prison system is a whole nother debacle, at least it's something. My personal opinion is that though some people may not deserve to live, upholding life as sacred gives value to all life and is something that would separate one from the initial perpetrators of harm. It may be idealistic of me, but I think that the most humanistic approaches give the most hope for the future of society.
(reply to this comment)
| From Falcon
Friday, March 28, 2008, 14:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the prison system is no solution. They get out for good behaviour and go back to their old ways. I think there should be some kind of medical reform centres for these people, or they should be locked away for life, but then again, why are they going to be living off our money, when they are no longer existing on this planet for any purpose ?
If you really uphold life as sacred, shouldn't those responsible for ending and destroying many lives be eliminated to preserve the sanctity of life? Back to the question, should one be killed to save 100 or 1000?(reply to this comment) |
| | From murasaki
Friday, March 28, 2008, 21:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
yeh, you're right. I was gonna add something about rehabilitation but was just too tired and drunk.....lol! I don't live in the US, but I've heard the prison system is pretty bad there. For that to work there would definitely need to be a big emphasis on rehabilitation and treatment available for those who need it. Terms of parole like chemical castration for sex offenders, medication for the violent, etc.... are some options.
As far as killing the one to save the many, logically, I'd say yes, but morally and ethically I'd say no. It makes sense if you're and yours are the ones being saved, but what if you're on the other side of the equation? Then it comes down to the people in authority and humans pretty much as a rule are capable of fault. Is there a way to consistently make those kind of judgements in a fair and unbiased way? Is an innocent life worth more than a weathered one, is the life of a child worth more than an adult?
I'm of the opinion that violence and death perpetrate violence and death, look at the middle east. A cycle of bitterness and hatred, I see that as the result of those in power deciding that some lives have more value over others. It's not that I think that horrible degenerates deserve to live, I just think the line needs to be drawn somewhere. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]