Van Der Sloot kills again! (Page 4)

meherczeg - 2010-06-09 2:50 PM

You MIGHT live, in the first case.

drewb8 - 2010-06-09 5:01 PM
Yes, sorry.  I should've specified in my hypothetical that I was referring to an attack on a ninja.

Sharyn5 - 2010-06-09 3:54 PM



so you're for an eye for an eye philosophy? Just asking the question.

wabash - 2010-06-09 4:32 PM

you have the right to kill in self defense, but its wrong if the judicial system sentences them to death if you lose your battle in self defense?
anyone care to rationalize this???????

meherczeg - 2010-06-09 3:03 PM

OOOHHHHHH well that changes everything.  in that case, i say that we blame his poor performance on an econ quiz on his choice of fresh fruits and juices.

drewb8 - 2010-06-09 5:14 PM
But here's the twist - the ninja is fighting.................... an alligator!!

scoobysdad - 2010-06-09 5:07 PM

...

 No, not really. I'm simply saying that all options should be left on the table. IMO, certain criminals commit crimes so heinous and in such a remorseless fashion that they have-- by their own choice and actions-- ceded their right to life and can be justifiably deprived of it.

meherczeg - 2010-06-09 4:16 PM

is he breaststroking?

meherczeg - 2010-06-09 3:16 PM

is he breaststroking?

drewb8 - 2010-06-09 4:27 PM
Ninja: no.
Alligator: yes.  He was looking for his ipod when he happened up the ninja and decided to attack him.

gearboy - 2010-06-09 4:14 PM



I find it fascinating that many of the people (not just here on BT) on the right who can't stand the idea that someone on the left wants to (in their view) impose their notions of social justice (e.g. medical care covered for all), are so quick to want to impose the ultimate consequence on another human being. 

But to answer the question - let me use an example.  If my dog, who is 12 years old, develops cancer, bone pain, and is in constant pain with no hope of recovery, few people would question me for taking him to the vet and having him injected with a lethal dose of pain meds to die.  But I bet if I took him as a puppy to the front yard and fired a bullet in his head because he peed on the rug, it would raise a lot of alarms.  Same outcome- the dog is dead.  I think the difference should be somewhat intuitive. In the first case, it is the least harmful thing to do (like killing someone in the midst of perpetrating a crime against someone's life).  But in the second, all I am doing is satisfying some atavitistic blood lust aroused by my anger (like having the death penalty and killing a person with full forethought and alternatives open to me).

gearboy - 2010-06-09 4:21 PM



Do you believe this to be literally true?

gearboy - 2010-06-09 4:14 PM  

But to answer the question - let me use an example.  If my dog, who is 12 years old, develops cancer, bone pain, and is in constant pain with no hope of recovery, few people would question me for taking him to the vet and having him injected with a lethal dose of pain meds to die.  But I bet if I took him as a puppy to the front yard and fired a bullet in his head because he peed on the rug, it would raise a lot of alarms.  Same outcome- the dog is dead.  I think the difference should be somewhat intuitive. In the first case, it is the least harmful thing to do (like killing someone in the midst of perpetrating a crime against someone's life).  But in the second, all I am doing is satisfying some atavitistic blood lust aroused by my anger (like having the death penalty and killing a person with full forethought and alternatives open to me).

DerekL - 2010-06-09 5:35 PM
While I realize you're not making a direct comparison, I don't think it's right to compare a dog peeing on the carpet to human capital crimes.  If the dog mauled and killed a child, you'd have a more appropriate example.  It would also change your argument. 

gearboy - 2010-06-09 4:51 PM

But it is still OK to put down the dog that has done nothing wrong, and has been a faithful companion for the last decade or more?  In both cases (and this is why I am using these examples), the dog did nothing to warrant being killed.  But in the first, it is the least harmful thing to do.  In the second, there are clearly alternatives available. (BTW, unless they made the changes in the law in PA that were being discussed, shooting my dog for peeing on the carpet is perfectly legal, however outrageous it may be. There was a puppy mill that opted to essentially do this rather than comply with laws to clean up the kennels.  It sparked some interest in changing the laws about when you can put down your dog.)

scoobysdad - 2010-06-09 5:30 PM

...

 This example makes zero sense and is simply a poor debate tactic. The DP discussion is simply one of determining a fitting punishment for a given crime.

ChrisM - 2010-06-09 5:58 PM As a total hijack, it's a shame that it's OK to humanely put down an animal that is sick and not enjoying any quality of life, but we cannot do the same for ourselves.

Just call me Dr. Death, I guess

ChrisM - 2010-06-09 4:46 PM

If it's me as an individual, then you are even more wrong.  But, you have that right to be wrong, I guess

Reminds me of liberals who believe they know what is best for everyone.  Not the most attractive quality.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people worried about keeping their own street clean, rather than trying to sweep up everyone else's

gearboy - 2010-06-09 5:58 PM

Not entirely.  It is also a discussion about the use of death penalty as an acceptable action on the part of a civilized people.  Just like torture is no longer considered appropriate (nor is the stockade, for that matter) for punishment, use of state-sanctioned murder is also highly debatable.