What Would You Do?

[MilitantDogOwner]

You are generalising - which makes you correct.

We are discussing a specific case - which makes you incorrect.

 

He murdered 2 people. Which he was wrong to do. There is nothing incorrect in that.

 

He is a murderer and he broke the law. I can't understand why this is being lost on you.

[Evil Goblin]

MDO - I do not disagree that, when considering things coolly and rationally, you are correct. We have no dispute on that. What I am saying is that the nature of human beings is such that the cool and rational ideal does not always govern what happens - emotional factors take over. What I do argue is that in deciding what sentence should be imposed on someone in these circumstances it should be borne in mind that what they have done is, to a great extent, in the nature of the beast. You will gather that I am not suggesting that everyone "should behave like that" - simply that the reality is that on some occasions they will.

 

"You have failed to repeatedly answer my question" - I assume you mean that I have repeatedly refused to answer your question? I did not believe the question was addressed to me, in view of the above, but since you now do ask me I will answer you. If someone loses control and exacts retribution on the wrong person then that is a tragedy and, if I were the perpetrator, I would punish myself ruthlessly for evermore, despite the fact that what I had done might be classified as down to "force majeure". One of the tragedies of the human condition.

 

I assume that you would not agree that "the Fall" in Genesis was a bad thing and that we should strive for a "return to Eden"? After all, "the Fall" is easily comprehended as being that Man's troubles really all began when he acquired a conscience which then impacted on his behaviour, rather than him simply behaving naturally.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Sorry, Evil, the question was a general one to all those in favour of the mans actions.

 

Either way, he went beyond his remit as a parent. Care for them, don't kill for them.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sometimes your views astound me, in one thread you advocate preventing a politician from speaking even if it is by violent methods, in another you advocate that every man should have the right to free speech, then you go on to say how can anyone expect to have fair justice in our corrupt capitalist society and there should be no prisons and go on to condemn a father who finds his daughter has been repeatedly and violently sexual abused by a member of society who is supposed to protect such victims and discovers he is allowed to get away with it, he then goes on to protect his daughter the only way he can see fit in his distressed state, and that is by executing (note I refuse to call this murder) him and therefore protecting not only his daughter but possibly countless others. You really take the biscuit at times.

I never said that a politician should be preventing from speaking, even by violent means. I said he should not be offered a platform in the first place. Which has nothing to do with free speech

 

I also did say that the current justice system is one that unjustly imprisons people based on the rules established by the ruling elite - and this sytem is wrong. However, killing someone because they sexually abused your daughter is wrong, in the sense that the individual should not take justice upon themselves. Yet the non-corrupt justice system would be an improvement to vigilantism, but in this instance it MAY appear that there cannot be impartiality - in such a way the recourse would be to do it yourself only if you were absolutely sure that the perpetrator is guitly/