Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (15745)	10/19/2002 10:35:47 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 93284

This is even a worse idea: Unless of course it turns out she makes a habit of finding ways to shoot people, in which case she'd better get a badge and learn the law and ethics. We can't have people becoming police officers so they can shoot people. Self-defense is NOT equivalent to vigilantism. I don't agree with vigilantism, except where no law exists such as back in the 1860s during the Montana gold rush. If there's no law or the law is run by the roadrunners like it was back then, vigilantism might be necessary. I don't see anything like that now. I too believe in the sacrament of life, but I believe there are some people who are so evil that we can't afford to have them in our society. A few examples: Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Son of Sam Berkowitz, the beltway sniper. I think the death penalty should be reserved for these types and shouldn't be applied to just everyday murders usually involving passion. The reason I believe that is because the death penalty is just too much trouble and too expensive, and after fifteen years of stays and appeals, what's the point? I don't think your analogy with Iraq holds water at all. Saddam has clearly provoked a massive response from us and we are justified in delivering it to him.

To: MSI who wrote (15745)	10/21/2002 4:45:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

What does this have to do with Iraq? (I knew you were asking yourself.) This: we don't have the moral authority to begin blowing away vigilante-style without obvious and public provocation. I think that Iraq has provided provocation but leaving that aside for the moment, and addressing your comparison to vigilantism. Its illegal for individuals to take care of things vigilante style because there is a government that can take care of it. There is no world government. Countries have to take care of their own problems. They might do so in concert with other nations or not but its not like the US can call the cops on Saddam. Tim