So, we should automatically side with the younger party, because they have the most chance to change their ways? We should adapt our judgement to the person we are judging.
I'm not asking you to accept that the kid was maliciously attempting to murder the man, merely to allow its possibility. If that were the case, then there were different ways to act than to shoot the child.
And to your snarky remark at the end of the post, did I at any point say I believe ALL children are evil? Clearly not, but can you understand how I possibly might believe that some are after witnessing a child cut up a dog with a knife and enjoy it? If that isn't evil, what is it? Misaligned social behavior? Yes, it certainly is. A few generations back the child would have been punished for not killing the animal swiftly before eating it. In sme cultures even that wouldn't have been an issue. Good and evil aren't absolutes. Of course that doesn't make misaligned social behaviour more or less acceptable. But it certainly changres the diagnosis from an asbolute state of evilness to another state that can be altered.
If a man picks up a six month old infant and hurls the baby into a wall, that is evil. No, it's not. Well, if you want to call it that way. The guy is just unfit for THIS society. For good reason of course. There is always a line, there is always some unforgivable deed that you can never come back from. Do you think that child would ever be the same after killing the dog? If a child deliberately threw a rock with intention of killing a man, is he ever really the same person after that? No. But doing something like that, can be an enrichment or at least not damaging given the proper guidance. People give up way too easily on children. This has been said to me by people who are supposed to bring troubled children back on the right track. The reason why it's rarely persuid is because the means are simply not there. By the time a child picks the fruits of his/her help the guy who paid for his help can't be reelected... I admit 100% that without the right help/guidance/whatever one is scarred for life by doing/witnessing horrible things. I speak from experience. But I also speak from experience that branding a child evil is simply throwing away a life.
No, there is evil. If a society is not capable of recognizing it, that society is guilty of allowing it. Denying good and evil denies right and wrong. I don't care what the context within the society is. Slavery is wrong, a couple hundred years ago the European world thought differently, but there were always those few detractors considered aberrant for screaming from the rafters that it was wrong. Slavery is evil.
The Nazis attempted to exterminate an entire race of people. Their society told them Jews were inferior and not deserving of human rights. The Jews disagreed. Genocide is evil.
Ten years ago I walked in on a nine year old boy cutting a dog gleefully, taking pleasure from the death of an animal he had no intention of eating, was not defending himself, did nothing to him but provide an object of idle amusement. Torturing animals for pleasure is evil.
Denying good and evil allows for any action to take place and be glorified as right. By your logic I can argue that this man shooting the child was potentially the socially correct thing to do.
What if the child had a terminal illness and would not live another year? His ability to change his functioning is severely impaired, and now the fifty year old man with half a life ahead of him has more time and potential to change his ways. Further, the sudden death of the child saved society the burden and cost of maintaining futile medical treatment. Society comes off with a net gain.
Just because a society deems something is acceptable or isn't doesn't make it so, not now and not in hindsight. If you had unlimited funds and the best manpower to deal with every troubled child, I guarantee some would still wind up murderers, rapists, and thugs. There is a certain point where you can't fix a broken human being. If you treated John Wayne Gacy with the best of the best, with unlimited funding, you still couldn't fix him, still couldn't make him a decent human being. He was a monster, and monsters are not the domain of fantasy, they are real and among us.
There is a monster in this case. Either the child or the man, or even both. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and consider that it could have been the child. I'm not asking you to accept that as fact yet, or even stating that it's what I believe.
There is no discussion, and to top it, he murder a child who supposedly throw him rocks...I dunno what this guy is smoking...but a 9 year old kid...easy as hell to scare and teach him a lesson, with the help of the policemen if you want.
This guy should be hanged.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Are we all reading the same article, the one with barely three paragraphs in it? All we know is that a man shot a child with a shotgun, and he told the police he got tired of the rock throwing. This is all the information we have. And, oh he should be hung, he should be strung up, it's wrong, it's evil.
So, by these standards, what if he's just a nutter? What if the voices in his head told him to kill the child or they'd cut his penis off (real excuse given by a man once).
The point is, everyone is getting hyped up on a story we know nothing about. Is it completely insane of me to say, wait for more information before passing judgement?
No, there is evil. If a society is not capable of recognizing it, that society is guilty of allowing it. Denying good and evil denies right and wrong. I don't care what the context within the society is. Slavery is wrong, a couple hundred years ago the European world thought differently, but there were always those few detractors considered aberrant for screaming from the rafters that it was wrong. Slavery is evil. There were times when slavery wasn't considered to be evil to anyone. Good and evil are concepts that are absolute, without consideration for anything, like time, place, culture, victim, ....... I refuse to believe in such dogmatic bullshit like good and evil. We've evolved beyond that. Of course a society can set rules. And the more evoled the society is, the more factors it can take into account.
The Nazis attempted to exterminate an entire race of people. Their society told them Jews were inferior and not deserving of human rights. The Jews disagreed. Genocide is evil. According to our current society genocide is evil. To the Nazi's it wasn't evil. To the US of the 1945's it wasn't evil to nuke to towns. In a few decades people might beg to differ. Evil is an absolute. Our sense of wrong isn't. Thus evil doesn't exist, besides being a figment of our imagination. Something that people used to use to simplify a very complicated world which they didn't fully understand. We undertsand the world far better now. Let's act accordingly.
Ten years ago I walked in on a nine year old boy cutting a dog gleefully, taking pleasure from the death of an animal he had no intention of eating, was not defending himself, did nothing to him but provide an object of idle amusement. Torturing animals for pleasure is evil. In our society it isn't accepted. Of course I agree with that. Perhaps if you're unwillig to change your dogmatic views, accept that the act of torture is "evil". But does that make the person evil? Does that make the person unable to change? Absolutely not. I've done far more evil acts than torturing a dog, yet I'm capable of doing "good".
Denying good and evil allows for any action to take place and be glorified as right. By your logic I can argue that this man shooting the child was potentially the socially correct thing to do. Not in our society, it wasn't. In our society one should be responsible enough to react according to the threat. By my logic good and wrong are defined by the society.
What if the child had a terminal illness and would not live another year? His ability to change his functioning is severely impaired, and now the fifty year old man with half a life ahead of him has more time and potential to change his ways. Further, the sudden death of the child saved society the burden and cost of maintaining futile medical treatment. Society comes off with a net gain. What if my aunt had balls? Then she'd be my uncle.
Just because a society deems something is acceptable or isn't doesn't make it so, not now and not in hindsight. Go tell that 100 before the birth of Jesus Christ when you offer water to a samaritan... If you had unlimited funds and the best manpower to deal with every troubled child, I guarantee some would still wind up murderers, rapists, and thugs. Yes, and hundreds of thousands wouldn't. And frankly I even doubt that what you say is the case. Those people are clearly mentally impaired and can be helped another way. BTW, it doesn't cost "unlimited" funds. Far from. There is a certain point where you can't fix a broken human being. Indeed. And mostly children are far, far easier to be fixed. Ask any psychologist. If you treated John Wayne Gacy with the best of the best, with unlimited funding, you still couldn't fix him, still couldn't make him a decent human being. He was a monster, and monsters are not the domain of fantasy, they are real and among us. A "monster". Nice way of trying to simplify things again. In certain times people would be cast out of the community when they had a skin condition or something else that disfigured them. Now we're beyond that (mostly...). How much longer do we have to wait until we have the same consideration for mental illnesses?
There is a monster in this case. Either the child or the man, or even both. You're making the world much too simple. Maybe if the man was"the monster", why not his parents? Or society? Or the parking attendant that pissed him off two days before? I'm certainly not saying they're all guilty, but dehumanizing someone is just ridiculous. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and consider that it could have been the child. I'm not asking you to accept that as fact yet, or even stating that it's what I believe. All I ask is that you get an open mind and consider the circumstances and not try to put people in simple boxes like "good", "evil" or "monster".
EDIT: Also... There's not a single situation in which one can still be able to get a shotgun, load it and aim it and be threatened enough by a 9-YEAR OLD with ROCKS to actually fire the shotgun. He said to the Police he was getting tired of the rockthrowing... I mean... He didn't say "The kid was towering over me with a 2 foot rick and I couldn't remove the rock or disable the child so the only choice that was left was to fire the shotgun which I just happened to have with me". No, he didn't say that.
Are we all reading the same article, the one with barely three paragraphs in it? All we know is that a man shot a child with a shotgun, and he told the police he got tired of the rock throwing. This is all the information we have. And, oh he should be hung, he should be strung up, it's wrong, it's evil.
So, by these standards, what if he's just a nutter? What if the voices in his head told him to kill the child or they'd cut his penis off (real excuse given by a man once).
The point is, everyone is getting hyped up on a story we know nothing about. Is it completely insane of me to say, wait for more information before passing judgement?
While retrieving his bike from the schoolyard.
He basically attacks the kid, with a gun, and kills the kid. Supposedly it was because of some rock throwing, which may or not have happened, which may have been done by this kid or another.
Personnally I don't believe in treating the nutter differently, because they are just as dangerous. Laws are not there for justice, they are there to make society safe. This guy definitely require a permanent and defininitive removal from society, and I don't belive in re-habs myself. The kid is dead, he has no second chance. I don't think it would be fair to waste 50K per year to rehab someone who kill, a child on top of it. This 50k could be invested elsewhere, to fight poverty or whatever. Wasting it on this murderer is a bad idea IMO, hanging him is the fast and efficient solution, so we just pass to something else to improve society.
I am tired to see all the efforts put on peoples who kills or do major crimes while some peoples who never did anything wrong actually need that help, that money and these efforts. Hanging him is for the best. Just look around you, no matter where you live in America, some peoples needs that help, a LOT more then this criminal. Just hang him and help whoever you want, just don't waste ressources on this criminal, put them where it matters, on citizens that needs it.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Are we all reading the same article, the one with barely three paragraphs in it? All we know is that a man shot a child with a shotgun, and he told the police he got tired of the rock throwing. This is all the information we have. And, oh he should be hung, he should be strung up, it's wrong, it's evil.
So, by these standards, what if he's just a nutter? What if the voices in his head told him to kill the child or they'd cut his penis off (real excuse given by a man once).
The point is, everyone is getting hyped up on a story we know nothing about. Is it completely insane of me to say, wait for more information before passing judgement?
While retrieving his bike from the schoolyard.
He basically attacks the kid, with a gun, and kills the kid. Supposedly it was because of some rock throwing, which may or not have happened, which may have been done by this kid or another.
Personnally I don't believe in treating the nutter differently, because they are just as dangerous. Laws are not there for justice, they are there to make society safe. This guy definitely require a permanent and defininitive removal from society, and I don't belive in re-habs myself. The kid is dead, he has no second chance. I don't think it would be fair to waste 50K per year to rehab someone who kill, a child on top of it. This 50k could be invested elsewhere, to fight poverty or whatever. Wasting it on this murderer is a bad idea IMO, hanging him is the fast and efficient solution, so we just pass to something else to improve society.
I am tired to see all the efforts put on peoples who kills or do major crimes while some peoples who never did anything wrong actually need that help, that money and these efforts. Hanging him is for the best.
Oh please. You're very comfortable with generalities, but you can't accept that there is a shred of a chance that the man is anything but damnable for his actions?
I merely suggested it because, like all news reports with few facts, every person on this board jumps to conclusions. Do you honestly believe that I think the child did something to justify THIS? No, but there is a shred of possibility that circumstances occured that would make it not right to instantly damn this man. The point being that not one of us knows a damn thing about this story but the little blurb on this website. I continue my arguments merely to illustrate that in some twisted way it is possible that there is more to this story than meets the eye, and your refusal to even accept THAT forces me to continue to argue for a possibility I find disturbing and repugnant as any of you.
To your concept of moral relativism, do not come off with the attitude that you are somehow more evolved and advanced than I. I will clear up your misconceptions. First, I do not ascribe to any faith you know, so don't assume I'm some kind of psychotic pseudo-Christian spewing drivel here. Second, I am well aware of your positions, and oppose them philosophically.
I know all about this notion of no absolutes, the post-modernist assertions, all the stuff you are proud of. I am so familiar with it that I can make arguments from it. Neither of us can really say whether there is good or evil, path a or path b. Indeed, thinking in terms of a spectrum with good on one end and evil on another, and a thousand shades of grey, is not even what you believe, is it? Perhaps you believe that there are many viewpoints, many places to stand, so that the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' I proclaim, are mere dots in a galaxy full of such stars of ideas. That we create our own moralities throught the standards with which we judge the world around us, through what is most useful to us.
I believe you are wrong. I believe it is wrong to deny absolutes, especially good and evil. I believe it leads humanity down terrible paths, is philosophically, ethically, and morally irresponsible. I believe in evil, good old fashioned evil, because I claim to have seen it innumberable times. I believe that a society which denies there is a right and a wrong will make the mistakes of societies that came before, but one that accepts these concepts will look back and realize that past actions were wrong and try not to repeat them.
Somehow we have turned this thread into a boxing match between moral relativism vs. moral absolutism, so let me scale it back and say what I've been trying to illustrate as simply as possible:
Don't jump to any conclusions when all you know is a few paragraphs typed on some local newspaper's website.
Oh please. You're very comfortable with generalities, but you can't accept that there is a shred of a chance that the man is anything but damnable for his actions?
I merely suggested it because, like all news reports with few facts, every person on this board jumps to conclusions. Do you honestly believe that I think the child did something to justify THIS? No, but there is a shred of possibility that circumstances occured that would make it not right to instantly damn this man. The point being that not one of us knows a damn thing about this story but the little blurb on this website. I continue my arguments merely to illustrate that in some twisted way it is possible that there is more to this story than meets the eye, and your refusal to even accept THAT forces me to continue to argue for a possibility I find disturbing and repugnant as any of you.
To your concept of moral relativism, do not come off with the attitude that you are somehow more evolved and advanced than I. I will clear up your misconceptions. First, I do not ascribe to any faith you know, so don't assume I'm some kind of psychotic pseudo-Christian spewing drivel here. Second, I am well aware of your positions, and oppose them philosophically.
I know all about this notion of no absolutes, the post-modernist assertions, all the stuff you are proud of. I am so familiar with it that I can make arguments from it. Neither of us can really say whether there is good or evil, path a or path b. Indeed, thinking in terms of a spectrum with good on one end and evil on another, and a thousand shades of grey, is not even what you believe, is it? Perhaps you believe that there are many viewpoints, many places to stand, so that the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' I proclaim, are mere dots in a galaxy full of such stars of ideas. That we create our own moralities throught the standards with which we judge the world around us, through what is most useful to us.
I believe you are wrong. I believe it is wrong to deny absolutes, especially good and evil. I believe it leads humanity down terrible paths, is philosophically, ethically, and morally irresponsible. I believe in evil, good old fashioned evil, because I claim to have seen it innumberable times. I believe that a society which denies there is a right and a wrong will make the mistakes of societies that came before, but one that accepts these concepts will look back and realize that past actions were wrong and try not to repeat them.
Somehow we have turned this thread into a boxing match between moral relativism vs. moral absolutism, so let me scale it back and say what I've been trying to illustrate as simply as possible:
Don't jump to any conclusions when all you know is a few paragraphs typed on some local newspaper's website.
The only thing i think you didn't quite get right is that good and evil are solely creations of the human mind. Being limited by our primitive ancestry we just have to classify and categorize things into those two categories. What is good and what is evil is in the end defined by our own mind, as limited as it may be.
Oh please. You're very comfortable with generalities, but you can't accept that there is a shred of a chance that the man is anything but damnable for his actions?
I merely suggested it because, like all news reports with few facts, every person on this board jumps to conclusions. Do you honestly believe that I think the child did something to justify THIS? No, but there is a shred of possibility that circumstances occured that would make it not right to instantly damn this man. The point being that not one of us knows a damn thing about this story but the little blurb on this website. I continue my arguments merely to illustrate that in some twisted way it is possible that there is more to this story than meets the eye, and your refusal to even accept THAT forces me to continue to argue for a possibility I find disturbing and repugnant as any of you.
To your concept of moral relativism, do not come off with the attitude that you are somehow more evolved and advanced than I. I will clear up your misconceptions. First, I do not ascribe to any faith you know, so don't assume I'm some kind of psychotic pseudo-Christian spewing drivel here. Second, I am well aware of your positions, and oppose them philosophically.
I know all about this notion of no absolutes, the post-modernist assertions, all the stuff you are proud of. I am so familiar with it that I can make arguments from it. Neither of us can really say whether there is good or evil, path a or path b. Indeed, thinking in terms of a spectrum with good on one end and evil on another, and a thousand shades of grey, is not even what you believe, is it? Perhaps you believe that there are many viewpoints, many places to stand, so that the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' I proclaim, are mere dots in a galaxy full of such stars of ideas. That we create our own moralities throught the standards with which we judge the world around us, through what is most useful to us.
I believe you are wrong. I believe it is wrong to deny absolutes, especially good and evil. I believe it leads humanity down terrible paths, is philosophically, ethically, and morally irresponsible. I believe in evil, good old fashioned evil, because I claim to have seen it innumberable times. I believe that a society which denies there is a right and a wrong will make the mistakes of societies that came before, but one that accepts these concepts will look back and realize that past actions were wrong and try not to repeat them.
Somehow we have turned this thread into a boxing match between moral relativism vs. moral absolutism, so let me scale it back and say what I've been trying to illustrate as simply as possible:
Don't jump to any conclusions when all you know is a few paragraphs typed on some local newspaper's website.
I do not belive in good and evil. Because I've seen, experienced and done "evil" and seen and experienced far less, if any "good".
If you think there are absolutes like Good and Evil then you are unwilling to do what brought us to our current view on morality. That is to question what we consider to be unquestionable. Once we didn't question whether or not slavery is "evil" and once we didn't question whether or not opressing women is "evil". Now we have, and we have grown trough it. I'm not saying there isn't any 'right' or "wrong" within the context of a society. But it will certainly don't just come out of nowhere if it's not taught to people. Right and wrong aren't included in the fabric of space and time. They're made up by people. And the more we evolve, the more we have the opportunity to nuanciate our previously dogmatic views. And we won't evolve without questioning and testing our beliefs. And we certainly won't evolve without making mistakes or taking risks. Why we can look back and recongize previous actions to be mistaken is because we have changed. In those times people were probably saying exactly what you are saying, that questioning good (in their case possibly slavery or mass murder) will lead to the downfall of civilization. In 200 years we will be looked upon as barbarians for labelling perfectly curable people as "monsters". Or maybe we will not. Who knows. But it is only by testing our "absolutes" that we will get there. I don't believe in moral opportunism (set the rules that fit you for the moment, which is de facto anarchy) but I do belive in moral realism (take the factors into account you can take into account, and deny none).
It's not about denying right and wrong. I don't think there has been a single society with their version of wright and wrong. it's about questioning, testing, redefining and especially EVOLVING. Setting absolute values will stop us from doing that. And what if the values we set to begin with were wrong? What if those 500-year old morals of "good" were still considered to be "good"?
To respond to the initial question:
I believe that with the little information that we got we can still conclude the guy that shot the kid was way out of order.
I wouldn't have so strongely reacted to this article:
"Man shoots 9-year old"
Mainly because I think it's hypocritical to react strongly about the death of a child while there are constantly innocent children dying of much simpeler causes (hunger, disease, poverty in general, ...).
I do not belive in good and evil. Because I've seen, experienced and done "evil" and seen and experienced far less, if any "good".
To get you guys on the right track: Since 'good' and 'evil' are terms forged by man, what relevance has something like this? Out of 6 billion people living on this planet one shot another. So what? What makes this incidence so important? What you perceive to be important about it, the killing of a child by a grown up, doesn't matter at all. Your mind decieves you into thinking of it as important because they were members of your own kind, and this act is a threat to it's future.
Maybe one day you'll be able to see past yourself and realize how very limited your thoughts were when you were still trapped in what you thought was reality.
I do not belive in good and evil. Because I've seen, experienced and done "evil" and seen and experienced far less, if any "good".
To get you guys on the right track: Since 'good' and 'evil' are terms forged by man, what relevance has something like this? Out of 6 billion people living on this planet one shot another. So what? What makes this incidence so important? What you perceive to be important about it, the killing of a child by a grown up, doesn't matter at all. Your mind decieves you into thinking of it as important because they were members of your own kind, and this act is a threat to it's future.
Maybe one day you'll be able to see past yourself and realize how very limited your thoughts were when you were still trapped in what you thought was reality.
Sigh. We are a social species. Whether we want to or not, we have rules. We can't have NO rules. But the rules can change, yes.
Sigh. We are a social species. Whether we want to or not, we have rules. We can't have NO rules. But the rules can change, yes.
Agreed. What i'm trying to tell you is that once you look past what we are you actually realize that all those 'rules' which we live by are artificial, created by a rather primitive system designed to assure our survival. Which of course is elemental, for us at least, but nevertheless limits our ability to fully understand the reality that is behind all this garbage, which in our perception defines existance, and in the end only forces us to limit our own abilities to really see what is behind this whole seemingly disconcerting system.
SAUCE: CLICK HERE! So... Right or wrong? I'm a republican that's pro-gun proud member of the NRA with a warped sense of justice, so I would call this a righteous action. Keep it civil. Dicuss.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
SAUCE: CLICK HERE! So... Right or wrong? I'm a republican that's pro-gun proud member of the NRA with a warped sense of justice, so I would call this a righteous action. Keep it civil. Dicuss.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
im also a NRA member and also republican, but i dont agree with this. little kids do things like throw rocks and such. unless there wee about 20 of them trying to stone him to death old testament style then he needs to fry. or better yet let the neighborhood go ahead and stone him to death.
im also a NRA member and also republican, but i dont agree with this. little kids do things like throw rocks and such. unless there wee about 20 of them trying to stone him to death old testament style then he needs to fry. or better yet let the neighborhood go ahead and stone him to death.
So you would be OK with kids from the neighbourhood throwing stones through your window? Think about it, there's gotta be a way to stop such things from happening, and raw firepower still produces the best results, in any conflict.
SAUCE: CLICK HERE! So... Right or wrong? I'm a republican that's pro-gun proud member of the NRA with a warped sense of justice, so I would call this a righteous action. Keep it civil. Dicuss.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
No I can be right-wing without a gun I mean Alexander the Great was right wing and he never had a gun! I'd prefer to beat the crap out of my hippy neighbour with my bare fists. Far more satisfying to cause him great physical pain and have him live in fear of me than just shooting him, besides who wants to end up sharing a cell with a 7ft homosexual called Bubba? In prison you'd be Liberal I suppose since you didn't have a gun, and end up being a campaigner for gay rights by the time you got parole!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
im also a NRA member and also republican, but i dont agree with this. little kids do things like throw rocks and such. unless there wee about 20 of them trying to stone him to death old testament style then he needs to fry. or better yet let the neighborhood go ahead and stone him to death.
So you would be OK with kids from the neighbourhood throwing stones through your window? Think about it, there's gotta be a way to stop such things from happening, and raw firepower still produces the best results, in any conflict.
lets go over the more sane choices shall we?
1. Go to the kids parrents.
2. if that fails call the police
3. if one and two dont work sue the parrents for damages. If you went with option 2 you will have a complaint on file to take to court with you.
people like him are the ones that are giveing the anti gun polititions the ammo to pass more restrictive gun laws. And they are also makeing responcible gun owners like myself look bad. So if its ok to shoot a nane yearold throwing rocks i guess next i can kill the neighbors child that wanders into my yard just becasue i dont want the wear and tear on my grass.
I am pro gun and an NRA member but the more i read stuff on this forum sometimes i keep thinking there are just some people that shouldnt own guns.
SAUCE: CLICK HERE! So... Right or wrong? I'm a republican that's pro-gun proud member of the NRA with a warped sense of justice, so I would call this a righteous action. Keep it civil. Dicuss.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
No I can be right-wing without a gun I mean Alexander the Great was right wing and he never had a gun! I'd prefer to beat the crap out of my hippy neighbour with my bare fists. Far more satisfying to cause him great physical pain and have him live in fear of me than just shooting him, besides who wants to end up sharing a cell with a 7ft homosexual called Bubba? In prison you'd be Liberal I suppose since you didn't have a gun, and end up being a campaigner for gay rights by the time you got parole!
You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
SAUCE: CLICK HERE! So... Right or wrong? I'm a republican that's pro-gun proud member of the NRA with a warped sense of justice, so I would call this a righteous action. Keep it civil. Dicuss.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
No I can be right-wing without a gun I mean Alexander the Great was right wing and he never had a gun! I'd prefer to beat the crap out of my hippy neighbour with my bare fists. Far more satisfying to cause him great physical pain and have him live in fear of me than just shooting him, besides who wants to end up sharing a cell with a 7ft homosexual called Bubba? In prison you'd be Liberal I suppose since you didn't have a gun, and end up being a campaigner for gay rights by the time you got parole!
You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
im guessing you get most of your worl history from watching movies. if you do your research you will find out that they only SUSPECT he was homosexual they have no proof of it. And so what if he was? like that matters. what does that have to do with the price of tea in china anyway? Your argument just gets weaker all the time.
You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
Well Alexander was a married man (to a woman) as for bonking men I'm sure he may well of done so. Some might say that man was cowardly to attack a nine year old and probably insane to use a shotgun. Whereas you'd class him as a red blooded hetrosexual male doing the right thing? Well he's gonna be sharing a cell with Bubba for the rest of his life and be getting beaten up by a bunch of inmates everday of his life. But since those inmates are using fists and not guns I'm sure a red blooded right wing hetrosexual has nothin to fear from those tree hugging hippy liberal homosexuals right?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Comments
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Man, someone watches FOX NEW and CNN just a little too much.
He would throw bricks at them. Sounds like some kids harrassing the crazy old man down the block.
There is no right or wrong here. The guy MURDERED a kid. It's just wrong.
Wish Darkfall would release.
No, there is evil. If a society is not capable of recognizing it, that society is guilty of allowing it. Denying good and evil denies right and wrong. I don't care what the context within the society is. Slavery is wrong, a couple hundred years ago the European world thought differently, but there were always those few detractors considered aberrant for screaming from the rafters that it was wrong. Slavery is evil.
The Nazis attempted to exterminate an entire race of people. Their society told them Jews were inferior and not deserving of human rights. The Jews disagreed. Genocide is evil.
Ten years ago I walked in on a nine year old boy cutting a dog gleefully, taking pleasure from the death of an animal he had no intention of eating, was not defending himself, did nothing to him but provide an object of idle amusement. Torturing animals for pleasure is evil.
Denying good and evil allows for any action to take place and be glorified as right. By your logic I can argue that this man shooting the child was potentially the socially correct thing to do.
What if the child had a terminal illness and would not live another year? His ability to change his functioning is severely impaired, and now the fifty year old man with half a life ahead of him has more time and potential to change his ways. Further, the sudden death of the child saved society the burden and cost of maintaining futile medical treatment. Society comes off with a net gain.
Just because a society deems something is acceptable or isn't doesn't make it so, not now and not in hindsight. If you had unlimited funds and the best manpower to deal with every troubled child, I guarantee some would still wind up murderers, rapists, and thugs. There is a certain point where you can't fix a broken human being. If you treated John Wayne Gacy with the best of the best, with unlimited funding, you still couldn't fix him, still couldn't make him a decent human being. He was a monster, and monsters are not the domain of fantasy, they are real and among us.
There is a monster in this case. Either the child or the man, or even both. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and consider that it could have been the child. I'm not asking you to accept that as fact yet, or even stating that it's what I believe.
This is 1st degree murder.
He go out, get his gun, and exact revenge.
There is no discussion, and to top it, he murder a child who supposedly throw him rocks...I dunno what this guy is smoking...but a 9 year old kid...easy as hell to scare and teach him a lesson, with the help of the policemen if you want.
This guy should be hanged.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Are we all reading the same article, the one with barely three paragraphs in it? All we know is that a man shot a child with a shotgun, and he told the police he got tired of the rock throwing. This is all the information we have. And, oh he should be hung, he should be strung up, it's wrong, it's evil.
So, by these standards, what if he's just a nutter? What if the voices in his head told him to kill the child or they'd cut his penis off (real excuse given by a man once).
The point is, everyone is getting hyped up on a story we know nothing about. Is it completely insane of me to say, wait for more information before passing judgement?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
While retrieving his bike from the schoolyard.
He basically attacks the kid, with a gun, and kills the kid. Supposedly it was because of some rock throwing, which may or not have happened, which may have been done by this kid or another.
Personnally I don't believe in treating the nutter differently, because they are just as dangerous. Laws are not there for justice, they are there to make society safe. This guy definitely require a permanent and defininitive removal from society, and I don't belive in re-habs myself. The kid is dead, he has no second chance. I don't think it would be fair to waste 50K per year to rehab someone who kill, a child on top of it. This 50k could be invested elsewhere, to fight poverty or whatever. Wasting it on this murderer is a bad idea IMO, hanging him is the fast and efficient solution, so we just pass to something else to improve society.
I am tired to see all the efforts put on peoples who kills or do major crimes while some peoples who never did anything wrong actually need that help, that money and these efforts. Hanging him is for the best. Just look around you, no matter where you live in America, some peoples needs that help, a LOT more then this criminal. Just hang him and help whoever you want, just don't waste ressources on this criminal, put them where it matters, on citizens that needs it.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
While retrieving his bike from the schoolyard.
He basically attacks the kid, with a gun, and kills the kid. Supposedly it was because of some rock throwing, which may or not have happened, which may have been done by this kid or another.
Personnally I don't believe in treating the nutter differently, because they are just as dangerous. Laws are not there for justice, they are there to make society safe. This guy definitely require a permanent and defininitive removal from society, and I don't belive in re-habs myself. The kid is dead, he has no second chance. I don't think it would be fair to waste 50K per year to rehab someone who kill, a child on top of it. This 50k could be invested elsewhere, to fight poverty or whatever. Wasting it on this murderer is a bad idea IMO, hanging him is the fast and efficient solution, so we just pass to something else to improve society.
I am tired to see all the efforts put on peoples who kills or do major crimes while some peoples who never did anything wrong actually need that help, that money and these efforts. Hanging him is for the best.
There's enough money to help both, you know.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Oh please. You're very comfortable with generalities, but you can't accept that there is a shred of a chance that the man is anything but damnable for his actions?
I merely suggested it because, like all news reports with few facts, every person on this board jumps to conclusions. Do you honestly believe that I think the child did something to justify THIS? No, but there is a shred of possibility that circumstances occured that would make it not right to instantly damn this man. The point being that not one of us knows a damn thing about this story but the little blurb on this website. I continue my arguments merely to illustrate that in some twisted way it is possible that there is more to this story than meets the eye, and your refusal to even accept THAT forces me to continue to argue for a possibility I find disturbing and repugnant as any of you.
To your concept of moral relativism, do not come off with the attitude that you are somehow more evolved and advanced than I. I will clear up your misconceptions. First, I do not ascribe to any faith you know, so don't assume I'm some kind of psychotic pseudo-Christian spewing drivel here. Second, I am well aware of your positions, and oppose them philosophically.
I know all about this notion of no absolutes, the post-modernist assertions, all the stuff you are proud of. I am so familiar with it that I can make arguments from it. Neither of us can really say whether there is good or evil, path a or path b. Indeed, thinking in terms of a spectrum with good on one end and evil on another, and a thousand shades of grey, is not even what you believe, is it? Perhaps you believe that there are many viewpoints, many places to stand, so that the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' I proclaim, are mere dots in a galaxy full of such stars of ideas. That we create our own moralities throught the standards with which we judge the world around us, through what is most useful to us.
I believe you are wrong. I believe it is wrong to deny absolutes, especially good and evil. I believe it leads humanity down terrible paths, is philosophically, ethically, and morally irresponsible. I believe in evil, good old fashioned evil, because I claim to have seen it innumberable times. I believe that a society which denies there is a right and a wrong will make the mistakes of societies that came before, but one that accepts these concepts will look back and realize that past actions were wrong and try not to repeat them.
Somehow we have turned this thread into a boxing match between moral relativism vs. moral absolutism, so let me scale it back and say what I've been trying to illustrate as simply as possible:
Don't jump to any conclusions when all you know is a few paragraphs typed on some local newspaper's website.
WTF, just waste those suckers. Like the saying goes: Never bring a rock to a gunfight, L011l!!1
The only thing i think you didn't quite get right is that good and evil are solely creations of the human mind. Being limited by our primitive ancestry we just have to classify and categorize things into those two categories. What is good and what is evil is in the end defined by our own mind, as limited as it may be.
If you think there are absolutes like Good and Evil then you are unwilling to do what brought us to our current view on morality. That is to question what we consider to be unquestionable. Once we didn't question whether or not slavery is "evil" and once we didn't question whether or not opressing women is "evil". Now we have, and we have grown trough it. I'm not saying there isn't any 'right' or "wrong" within the context of a society. But it will certainly don't just come out of nowhere if it's not taught to people. Right and wrong aren't included in the fabric of space and time. They're made up by people. And the more we evolve, the more we have the opportunity to nuanciate our previously dogmatic views. And we won't evolve without questioning and testing our beliefs. And we certainly won't evolve without making mistakes or taking risks. Why we can look back and recongize previous actions to be mistaken is because we have changed. In those times people were probably saying exactly what you are saying, that questioning good (in their case possibly slavery or mass murder) will lead to the downfall of civilization. In 200 years we will be looked upon as barbarians for labelling perfectly curable people as "monsters". Or maybe we will not. Who knows. But it is only by testing our "absolutes" that we will get there. I don't believe in moral opportunism (set the rules that fit you for the moment, which is de facto anarchy) but I do belive in moral realism (take the factors into account you can take into account, and deny none).
It's not about denying right and wrong. I don't think there has been a single society with their version of wright and wrong. it's about questioning, testing, redefining and especially EVOLVING. Setting absolute values will stop us from doing that. And what if the values we set to begin with were wrong? What if those 500-year old morals of "good" were still considered to be "good"?
To respond to the initial question:
I believe that with the little information that we got we can still conclude the guy that shot the kid was way out of order.
I wouldn't have so strongely reacted to this article:
"Man shoots 9-year old"
Mainly because I think it's hypocritical to react strongly about the death of a child while there are constantly innocent children dying of much simpeler causes (hunger, disease, poverty in general, ...).
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Maybe one day you'll be able to see past yourself and realize how very limited your thoughts were when you were still trapped in what you thought was reality.
Maybe one day you'll be able to see past yourself and realize how very limited your thoughts were when you were still trapped in what you thought was reality.
Sigh. We are a social species. Whether we want to or not, we have rules. We can't have NO rules. But the rules can change, yes.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Agreed. What i'm trying to tell you is that once you look past what we are you actually realize that all those 'rules' which we live by are artificial, created by a rather primitive system designed to assure our survival. Which of course is elemental, for us at least, but nevertheless limits our ability to fully understand the reality that is behind all this garbage, which in our perception defines existance, and in the end only forces us to limit our own abilities to really see what is behind this whole seemingly disconcerting system.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
im also a NRA member and also republican, but i dont agree with this. little kids do things like throw rocks and such. unless there wee about 20 of them trying to stone him to death old testament style then he needs to fry. or better yet let the neighborhood go ahead and stone him to death.
So you would be OK with kids from the neighbourhood throwing stones through your window? Think about it, there's gotta be a way to stop such things from happening, and raw firepower still produces the best results, in any conflict.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
No I can be right-wing without a gun I mean Alexander the Great was right wing and he never had a gun! I'd prefer to beat the crap out of my hippy neighbour with my bare fists. Far more satisfying to cause him great physical pain and have him live in fear of me than just shooting him, besides who wants to end up sharing a cell with a 7ft homosexual called Bubba? In prison you'd be Liberal I suppose since you didn't have a gun, and end up being a campaigner for gay rights by the time you got parole!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
So you would be OK with kids from the neighbourhood throwing stones through your window? Think about it, there's gotta be a way to stop such things from happening, and raw firepower still produces the best results, in any conflict.
lets go over the more sane choices shall we?1. Go to the kids parrents.
2. if that fails call the police
3. if one and two dont work sue the parrents for damages. If you went with option 2 you will have a complaint on file to take to court with you.
people like him are the ones that are giveing the anti gun polititions the ammo to pass more restrictive gun laws. And they are also makeing responcible gun owners like myself look bad. So if its ok to shoot a nane yearold throwing rocks i guess next i can kill the neighbors child that wanders into my yard just becasue i dont want the wear and tear on my grass.
I am pro gun and an NRA member but the more i read stuff on this forum sometimes i keep thinking there are just some people that shouldnt own guns.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
No I can be right-wing without a gun I mean Alexander the Great was right wing and he never had a gun! I'd prefer to beat the crap out of my hippy neighbour with my bare fists. Far more satisfying to cause him great physical pain and have him live in fear of me than just shooting him, besides who wants to end up sharing a cell with a 7ft homosexual called Bubba? In prison you'd be Liberal I suppose since you didn't have a gun, and end up being a campaigner for gay rights by the time you got parole!
You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
Well I'm a right-wing anti-gun proud member of then BNP with a warped sense of humour, so I would've called Chris Benoit to come around and deal out his sense of warped justice to the kids!
Uh dude, you can't be right wing AND anti-gun rofl!!!11 Owning guns naturally turns you into a right-wing radical, i'm experiencing it myself right now. I so want to blast my Hippy neighbors face off right now, you don't believe.
No I can be right-wing without a gun I mean Alexander the Great was right wing and he never had a gun! I'd prefer to beat the crap out of my hippy neighbour with my bare fists. Far more satisfying to cause him great physical pain and have him live in fear of me than just shooting him, besides who wants to end up sharing a cell with a 7ft homosexual called Bubba? In prison you'd be Liberal I suppose since you didn't have a gun, and end up being a campaigner for gay rights by the time you got parole!
You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
im guessing you get most of your worl history from watching movies. if you do your research you will find out that they only SUSPECT he was homosexual they have no proof of it. And so what if he was? like that matters. what does that have to do with the price of tea in china anyway? Your argument just gets weaker all the time.
You know Alexander was a homosexual, right? Fighting without firepower = gay.
Well Alexander was a married man (to a woman) as for bonking men I'm sure he may well of done so. Some might say that man was cowardly to attack a nine year old and probably insane to use a shotgun. Whereas you'd class him as a red blooded hetrosexual male doing the right thing? Well he's gonna be sharing a cell with Bubba for the rest of his life and be getting beaten up by a bunch of inmates everday of his life. But since those inmates are using fists and not guns I'm sure a red blooded right wing hetrosexual has nothin to fear from those tree hugging hippy liberal homosexuals right?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis