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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (506090)	12/8/2003 4:52:22 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<Well if the human is innocent of infringing upon the life of another human, then obviously I am against the death penalty.>> I think a better analogy is to someone who has been pronounced brain-dead. They are clearly human and clearly alive, but pulling the plug is not murder. Or is it considered murder to staunch anti-abortion Christians and i just never hear about it? Steve Dietrich

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (506090)	12/8/2003 5:22:33 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "Well if the human is innocent of infringing upon the life of another human, then obviously I am against the death penalty." >>> Now, that seems a lot more wishy-washy than your earlier statement: "...no attribute in any single human is sufficient to objectively designate a human as worthy of determining which other innocent humans should live or die." [Correct. But we exist as a 'nation of laws' (as do all nations to varying degrees). So, the legal framework that organizes our social structure has significance in our lives.] "Yes it does, and optimally the laws that govern our society should correspond to the natural "legal" structure of nature. But they do not." >>> Gee, too bad 'nature' never wrote down it's 'laws' in a form everyone could agree with. (We are still struggling to understand the most fundamental physical realities of the Universe... we are a long way away from being able to read the 'bylaws and statutes'....) "Well, once again, the innocence of the human is critical." >>> 'Innocence'? Or, 'ignorance'? (If I am IGNORANT of the harm I bring to others... does that make me innocent? If I drop bombs from 30,000 feet... I don't KNOW that I've killed anyone. If I dump PCBs or mercury or lead waste into my local watercourse... I don't KNOW THE NAMES of people downstream in that watershed who eat the fish from it... or swim in the 'invisibly' polluted water. Am I 'innocent'?) >>> I'd argue that in both cases, it may reasonably be inferred that my actions are the proximate cause of death, retardation, still births, spinal bifida, cancers, etc. (Perhaps, even to a higher level of proof & scientific 'certainty' than exists in most murder trials....) "Regarding pollution, motive is also critical. Indeed motive is critical in any moral determination." >>> REALLY? I didn't intend to kill their children, I just intended to get rich, and hoped no one downstream would connect me to their deaths and disabilities.... How then, are we to 'measure motive'? A little like 'weighing a soul', eh? >>> How about: "...I owe them nothing. I am completely free to let them die in misery." Message 19573566 >>> You 'owe'... not even compassion??????