Why do you want premeditated murders and rapists alive at our expense? Just end them and be done with it. Once they've had their fair trial etc and are found guilty of course. That goes without saying.
Why do you want premeditated murders and rapists alive at our expense? Just end them and be done with it. Once they've had their fair trial etc and are found guilty of course. That goes without saying.
I said you hit the big 2. Not that their were not more scenarios. Yeah, you'd be dead to
Maybe other people value life so much that they are ok with ending people who don't value life as much as they do. I care for my fellow humans too much to want to allow a murderer who doesn't value life to live. And im not alone in that regard.
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
If you're so okay with it, why all the euphemisms? Why not just call it what it is? Killing them. Slaughtering them.
I'm too lazy/don't have the time to research it myself right now, but do you happen to know if Kennedy v. Louisiana has been seriously questioned by any of the more respected Circuit courts, or by the Supremes themselves? Much as I oppose the death penalty (basically for due process reasons), it strikes (even) me as a truly bizarre decision/opinion and with a 5-4 majority, it's not exactly impregnable...
Last edited:
Sometimes euphemisms and metaphors are used by the squeamish, but sometimes they simply express a speaker's intent better than more factual/prosaic words... "Ending" someone to me implies a "blotting out of existence" in a much stronger sense than simply "killing", and to note another one used in this context, "culling the herd," for example, arguably suggests the (self-perceived) absence of the vindictiveness that motivates so many to support to the death penalty...
I like to call it executing them which i believe is the term used already. But im not squimish and dont value all life equally. They all start on equal playing ground but can move up and down the ladder. Murders and rapists are at the bottom of my caring scale. They have basically forfeited their right to be a human. IMO.
MajinCry
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2015
- 2,495
- 571
- 136
The way I see it, is that what separates us from animals, is our humanity; empathy, philanthropy, honesty, charity, all that good stuff makes you a human being.
But going against the moral grain; rape, gang rape, molestation, sex slavery, genocide, etc., is to throw away your humanity. You're no longer a human being, a member of society, but a dangerous animal; a human.
HeXen
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2009
- 7,835
- 37
- 91
His lawyer is just all calm and cool. I bet he went out to lunch right after that and had steak.
Also check out the video that loads after that, another cry baby going bye bye.
That's not really the definition of human being but rather a metaphor. Both cruelty and compassion can be witnessed amongst animals as well. Good and evil is what humans have always been. I have yet to see evidence that shows any individual could never commit "evil" under any circumstance, time era or environment.
Also check out the video that loads after that, another cry baby going bye bye.
That's not really the definition of human being but rather a metaphor. Both cruelty and compassion can be witnessed amongst animals as well. Good and evil is what humans have always been. I have yet to see evidence that shows any individual could never commit "evil" under any circumstance, time era or environment.
Last edited:
Really? Compassion, apparently yes. But I can't say I've ever heard of, and certainly personally have never seen, non-human animals acting in ways I'd call "cruel" in the sense of "wanton maliciousness"...
Myself, I don't consider that Holtzclaw et al "forfeit their humanity" - frankly, I think that's giving "humanity" far too much credit. But I also don't believe in the absolute and inviolate sanctity of human life, so I do agree with the "culling the herd" concept in certain cases (though in much more limited circumstances than laws calling for the death penalty generally do), whether the "herd" is composed of humans or other animals...
(On the other hand, I very strongly believe that there are so many inherent procedural problems involved in actually implementing the death penalty that I strongly oppose it as legal/political matter in principle, but practical rather than theoretical principles.)
Last edited:
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
lol im sorry but that's just not true. the animal kingdom has many animals that will be cruel.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514121651.htm
chimps will kill and in rare case's even EAT babies of other chimps. why? not 100% sure why.
there are many other situations. i just found that to be the most interesting situation.
have you had pets? I had a cat that would catch birds and mice. It wouldn't eat them. but it would catch it and play with it. then leave the dead mutilated body on the floor for me to clean up.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 20,382
- 15,074
- 136
The common wisdom AFAIK is that it's instinct, plain and simple - a cat's senses are attuned to tracking, killing and eating small creatures. The only thing that is unnatural in its environment is that it is being given food to eat by you. You may as well ask a dog to stop sniffing stuff despite the fact that its sense of smell is orders of magnitude better than a typical human's; let's see how well you react to being told not to use your primary sense(s) for interacting with the world.
The cat leaving the corpse behind is considered by many to be due to the cat still working within its perceived social hierarchy (presenting the top of the hierarchy with its kill), I have no idea.
Your other examples are more sound, but given that the reasons for the animals doing such things are not understood, then attributing their behaviour as malicious in intent is surely wrong. There's enough human behaviour (even what goes on in so-called "civilised society") that, based on an ignorant observer's understanding that seems incredibly fucked up. Of course there's also plenty of human behaviour that's fucked up no matter how much one scrutinises it yet it is still tolerated in the masses.
Back to the main topic, I don't understand how someone who has committed such abuses of their authority as well as being so thoroughly inhumane to others on so many occasions can come to a situation where they're crying uncontrollably when they're well and truly caught and judged for their crimes; what kind of consistent mental disconnection has to go on between thoughts, desires, justifications and actions in order to come to that point and react like that. If it was simply a case of feeling sorry for himself because he's going to prison, then surely he should have considered that somewhat earlier along the way.
Last edited:
He is a cop, they are so used to being completely above the law that they truly believe that they will and should get away with whatever they want.
sm625
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2011
- 8,172
- 137
- 106
Holtzclaw used his position of authority to run background checks to find information that could be used to coerce desirable behavior from his victims.
It is funny how when one guy does this, he is despicable. But when the government as whole does it, you vote for more of it.
It is funny how when one guy does this, he is despicable. But when the government as whole does it, you vote for more of it.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 20,382
- 15,074
- 136
However, to get away with it for as long as he had, he must have consciously thought about what he needs to do to avoid getting caught. As bad as the situation may be in America with regard to police accountability, it's not as if you get officers on national TV gunning someone down and saying "so what if I did?", AFAIK.
Even if this guy did things I can imagine him doing, like rationalising to himself that these women deserved the things he did to them, he's also got to consciously make efforts to avoid detection, hence that's what I don't get about his reaction in court. I would have thought that, in his head, the moment when the shit really his the fan was when he was charged or when his lawyer told him that in all likelihood he's going to jail.
I was going to mention that very "discovery" myself, but conversely to note it's seemingly clearly "deranged" as far as normative chimp behavior goes, but since the "perpetrator-chimps" are in fact eating the babies, that seems to me to take it out of the realm of "wanton maliciousness." It's apparently some sort of mental process gone totally haywire, but if they're doing it for "food", it's certainly not what is usually considered "wanton", and possibly not even "malicious", is it? It certainly presents what I'd consider a valid case for "culling the herd", but personally, I don't think it's "cruelty."
Last edited:
DigDog
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2011
- 14,450
- 2,874
- 126
HeXen
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2009
- 7,835
- 37
- 91
You've never been to a pig farm? Never watched a mother hen peck her own chicks to death? How about that Bangle Tiger that tracked down that hunter for shooting him in the leg and waited for him for 3 days at his cabin to get his revenge? Revenge sounds like cruel intention to me. Also watch rats, they can be show in tests to show compassion by freeing their buddy that is trapped before eating the cheese and then share it...and they also are shown bullying each other, sometimes till they die. I had a mouse glue trap catch one before and apparently another mouse came in and ate it's leg off while it was still alive...despite the rat poison on the other side of the garage it could have ate instead, but you could chock that one up to just being really hungry and not intentional but whatever.
Point is, our evil is as natural as anything else on Earth.
Last edited:
By "wanton maliciousness", I meant malicious behavior perpetrated for no reason other than satisfying some perverted/deranged/"evil" urge, impulse or desire on the part of the perpetrator unconnected to other "morally neutral" behaviors, like eating or otherwise "surviving"...
Some of your examples, I guess I'd have to agree with... though without necessarily agreeing with them, I also have to acknowledge that mainstream animal behaviorists usually "explain away" many of the behaviors you point to (like the mice "bullying" each other) as being based on instincts/behaviors that wouldn't normally be conflated with "wanton maliciousness..."
But as for some of the others - "revenge" for being shot is "cruel"? By whose definition? Even human homicides are often (though not necessarily) deemed rather less than "murder," much less aggravated murder, under similar conditions. And when it is considered "murder", that's based on the idea that the person has more appropriate alternatives. What's the tiger's alternative? Seeking legal redress? Or simply "turning the other cheek"? (We know how popular that is even among the most assertedly devout Chiristians and for that matter, until quite recently in historical terms, the Church hierarchy as well...) And it's not as if ridding itself of the hunter is purely "vengeful" either, rather than removing a potential future threat as well...
As for the mouse eating the other mouse's leg, again, "eating" "food" strikes me as definitely not "cruel" as the word is usually used, even while the other mouse was still alive, considering that animals often (have to?) eat other animals while they're alive... Are snakes being "cruel" to the rodents they consume whole (and which I've always assumed to my personal horror must survive, if only for some very brief period of time, inside the snake's "mouth"?) For that matter, are humans being "cruel" when they eat live shrimp (which I personally find abhorrent, but is considered a delicacy by some/many Chinese)?
AntonioHG
Senior member
HeXen
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2009
- 7,835
- 37
- 91
There's no proof that animals cannot have perverted/deranged urges.Just because you didn't witness or able to analyze an ape perform a sadistic act for his own sick pleasure doesn't mean it never happens.
Just wanted to say thanks for being a decent human being. Nobody who matters won't see it.
I could just as easily say there's more evidence they don't than that they do, but frankly, if I hadn't already typed it, it wouldn't be worth the effort... /whatever
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter