OT: Insightful (re: Amish shooting)

[Mephisto]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Killing is just never an answer.

To force a victim to re-live the most traumatic moments of his/hers life and to spill your innermost feelings to the public is just like to do it all over again.

I do think the world at large has a huge problem with women rights. We are all created equal and so we should treat each other.

[RonGianti]

Mephisto said:
Killing is just never an answer.

Too bad the guy who killed her parents with a hammer, then killed her brother a week later and repeatedly raped the 8 year old girl for a week didn't believe the same as you.

Tis a shame.

The "state" is not the same as a individual, who, as you point out, has certain "inalienable" rights. An individual does not have the right to kill another individual, but then an individual cannot tax another individual, nor can an individual setup their own road laws and enforce them in front of their house on a public street either.

It is a noble thing, to want to wipe off killing in general with a wide brush, and that little girl may be traumatized and best if she is spared. That is, maybe. But to put "do the right thing" and that guys name in the same sentence is still sick and twisted. And it should be her right, when she is old enough to decide, that if it would feel right to her that a trial go on, and he be put to death for his crimes, that too should be her inalienable right, not through herself as an individual, but through the institution of goverment, which has the right to enforce its higher will on individuals and always has.

[Mephisto]

RonGianti said:
Too bad the guy who killed her parents with a hammer, then killed her brother a week later and repeatedly raped the 8 year old girl for a week didn't believe the same as you.

It is horrible and a shame, no doubt about that. But I fail to see how killing him will make anybody else alive or give them justice. As much as I despise what such people do, they are still people and killing without dire need (read: self defense or defense of others from imminent peril) is wrong. The public is just as save when you put them into jail for the time being. An argument that this will cost money is, well, very problematic. Can it be right to kill someone to save cash?
The world did not come crashing down on my country when the death penalty was abolish 60 years ago. My humble opinion.

RonGianti said: And it should be her right, when she is old enough to decide, that if it would feel right to her that a trial go on, and he be put to death for his crimes, that too should be her inalienable right, not through herself as an individual, but through the institution of goverment, which has the right to enforce its higher will on individuals and always has.

I think we must agree to disagree over the matter. IMHO there is no unalienable right to kill someone for revenge. And if no individual has this right, it cannot be transferred to the state. All power of the state derives from the people.

In the end, we do agree on the subject of women rights. It is sick how many women are treated.

[Phoenix-D]

Xrati: that's far too cynical. You think the world is getting worse because that's the only thing the news likes to report, and we're getting news from all over the world. And technology..if you really look at history, most innovation has been driven by war or mass death. Disturbing, but its not a sign of a "world in decline".

For example, the worst American school killing wasn't in this decade. Or the 90s. Or the 80s. It was in 1927, when a school board member blew up a newly built elemttary school because he felt it had cost too much to build. While it was in session..

As for medicine, look up causes of death sometime. A 100 years ago, it was infectious disease mostly. Now? Diseases that are mostly causes by obesity Think about that one for a moment. It used to be being fat was a status symbol because it meant you were richenough to afford all that food!

RonGianti: it isn't just women you know. Murders don't make the news unless they're similar to another one or there's something odd about them.

[RonGianti]

Phoenix-D said:
RonGianti: it isn't just women you know. Murders don't make the news unless they're similar to another one or there's something odd about them.

Thats true, but the last 3 big news stories that are jumping out at me are the 8 year old raped for a week, the killing of Amish girls and the guy who took some girls hostage in a school, molested them, then shot one in the back of the head when the police arrived.

I just don't see any... outrage. Or even questioning. But I know more about Paris Hilton and Jennifer Anniston then I could ever care about in a lifetime. Neither one is news on any level, but they get reported on more than rape and murder. Something somewhere is... wrong.

[Atrocities]

I love women.

I think men that hurt women are the lowest forms of gutter trash known to exsist. Men who call the women in their lives "*****es" and "ho's" are without honor and are in fact cowerdly little closet thumb suckers.

While some women are truly evil most, like men, are just getting along. Then you have the few who enjoy perpetuating the negative sterotypes of women like that bumbling self absored spoiled rotten little trollup Paris Hilton. Hell that girl is NO role model yet millions of teenage girls around the world want to be just like her. WTF?

TV not only perpetuates the negative image of women, they are now telling women that in order to be cool you must be blond, dumb, and have a boy friend from another race who calls you ***** all the time as if he owns you.

Then when the news reports the kind of things they enjoy reporting because it gets ratings, people all of a sudden go "oh my God" and then quickly forget all about it. Just in time to turn on Paris Hilton on MTV and watch more "These are my *****es" rap music videos.

[Renegade 13]

Personally, I'm all for the death penalty and think it should be used a lot more than it is (in the US, we unfortunately don't have it here in Canada...).

Any crime that results in the death of another should be punishable by death. If you're convicted of the crime, it's automatic. I bet violent crime rates would go way way down if that was the case. Something like sexual assault? Well, there's a simple answer to that one; sterilization. Cut off the bastards testicles. Bet you'd see sexual assault rates drop like a rock too.

If society and the justice system showed that there would be no tolerance for crap like that, and the punishment actually befitted the crime, crime wouldn't appear to be such an attractive thing.

[Mephisto]

Renegade 13 said:
If society and the justice system showed that there would be no tolerance for crap like that, and the punishment actually befitted the crime, crime wouldn't appear to be such an attractive thing.

Unfortunately every statistic says that this is not the case. And we can easily see this in some Islamic countries as well where the Sharia rules. If you rape a women you will get killed, if you are a thief you will lose a hand. But crime is still rampant in many of these countries.
A deterrent only works if you think rational about a matter, weighting loss and gain. But many crimes are committed in a state where rational thinking is no longer present. And you have to get caught in the first place to have a deterrent work.
Actually, if the risk of getting caught is high even "low" deterrents work very well. Statistics show that blue collar crimes dropped significantly when more pressure was put into detecting such crimes and bring them to court and public. The shame to stand in court and lose your career did have quite an effect.
So, our aim should be to detect and bring to court crimes with a high probability. And this is something that would help many violated women as well. How many women are beaten because the man can do it without fear that it might see the light of public. But how many will beat a women if it is a) brought to public and b) considered a crime by the public and neighbors (if the public doesn't care, then your are completely on your own ).

[Renegade 13]

Mephisto, I get the impression you might be a defense lawyer

Dmm, I would argue that some of what is in the Bible would be considered to be highly amoral today. The taking of slaves? The castrating of captured men/boys? That kind of argues against human morality being passed down from God, who would most likely have a higher sense of morality than what the Bible contains.

(Note, I'm using the Bible as an example only, since Christianity is the only religion I have any knowledge of, and shouldn't be construed as an attack.)