Here's an interesting conundrum ..... how do you deal with cancer? If abortion is bad because a few human cells are human life, is killing cancer cells killing human life?

Are not violent criminals a cancer on society? Should they not be dealt with in the same way as cancer cells?

To Yorick:

It is insulting because as I read your thoughts I see you talking about an 'ideal' or talking about something we should implement in the world as it is today. If you are talking about it as an 'ideal' I find it (mildy) insulting simply because I think anybody on this thread would agree that such a world would be 'ideal', and to bring it up is kinda to imply otherwise. And the 'ideal' world I am envisioning is ideal because there would be no need for Euthenasia because there would be no cancer...no need for the death penalty becaues there would be no murderers...etc

I am leaning towards reading your statements as a manner of behavior we should implement into society now. Simply put...it's just not possible, and placing such simplistic rules on such complex issues is almost immoral in its own way (I go back to the concept of making a cancer patient suffer because there is "NO Euthenasia").

You mentioned that if someone were to break into your house you shouldn't have to worry about them killing you..and therefore having the need to 'self-defend' yourself with a gun.

Well...a) if we could make that happen, how come we couldn't stop burglary all together?

b) People are what they are...and think for themselves. It doesn't matter how many people stand up and sanctify life, there will always be ppl (at least for the next long while in human evolution) who will kill for profit and/or fun. I don't think many serial killers worry much about the 'sanctity' of life. I cannot read minds...how do I know that the burglar in my house won't kill or harm my family and I? Even if no murder has happened in the last 20 years, how can I be certain this guy isn't a nutcase? And thats an extereme example. Life IS sacred, but there are many people out there who believe it is not...and until their minds are changed the world will be what it is. More to the point, your still avoiding the cancer patient/No Euthenasia example...you can't live by ideals in an unideal world.

[ 11-28-2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Pikachu_PM ]

<font color=pink>Did I say a cancer patient should suffer? No. Increase pallative care. Make heroin legal for extreme cancer patients for example. "No euthenasia" does not equal "increase suffering." Seperate the two issues Pikachu. They are not exclusively interrelated.

These are not "pie in the sky" ideas. Societies values change. Look at cannibalism. Where it was once prevalent, it is now incomprehensible. Only occuring in extreme cases. A line in the sand was created. No consumption of humans is acceptable. Not your enemy, not your relative if they die naturally, not a criminal. Never, ever acceptable.

Look at incest. Completely socially unacceptable. It was not always the case. Look at polygamy. Look at property ownership. Hunter-gather societies found the concept of a human "owning land" unfathomable. How you own land? Much like selling airspace is a new idea seemingly bizzarre to some. How can you own the sky?

Change occurs by creating preclusivity. I own this house and you do not. Preclusive. No grey area. There is no case where you are allowed to come into my house and use it like your own, unless I the owner transfer that power.

Look at female clothing. Bare breasted cultures replaced by clothed ones. To the point that even breast feeding - one of the most natural human activities is something done behind closed doors.


<font color=pink>Again you're merging the two issues. Burglary - taking a persons property - is a seperate and not inseperable problem. Murder is a result, but not inevitability, of burglary.

Remove the threat to human life, on all side - law enforcer, theif, and victim, and it's a totally different scenario. No guns. Law enforcer doesn't turn up with guns, theif can't buy gun, victim doesn't own gun. </font>


<font color=pink>Can't I? I am an idealist Pikachu. I live by ideals in an unidealistic world. It's called "empowerment". Influencing rather than being influenced. Following your own path instead of incorporating the negative global values of the world. My Christianity is a form of idealism I have with me every day.

As for your comments on people "always" doing anything, you are speaking of the unknown. You down't know what humans will "always" be like. You cannot see into the mind of another, and cannot see into the future.

What we do have is NOW. Society NOW glorifies a "hero" who kills to achieve their end. The good guy in a film or computer game is good even though he kills hundreds of baddies. Good to who? Killing someone is evil to the victim. The cause is irrelevent. The cause is subjective. Two nations go to war. Both believe they are right. Both may well be. The result is the death of a father, a son, a brother or sister. Evil. Bad.

Change the value system. Recognise the subjectivity of "good and bad" and realise that a human ending human life is OBJECTIVELY bad, no matter what the subjective justification is.

Society now, as I said glorifies violence to achieve an end. The revolution was a good thing? People dying was good? Good may have arisen from it, but war is never good. Lesser of two evils perhaps, but never "good".

Violent criminals are therefore a product of their society. A society that allows rampant gun ownership. That creates a distiction between humans. Some can live, others somehow lose the right to live. As though we even gave it to be taken away....</font>

[ 11-28-2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

<font color=lime>You hit it right on the head Yorick. You are an absolute idealist. I am a realist. I live in the NOW.
Violence has evolved from the begining of human evolution. It is our nature to do whatever we need to do to survive. Living in a society is what has made it a crime to steal or even kill. We have needed laws (morals) to progress as a society, and being social creatures have allowed that. So therefore, in my opinion, living and relying on laws to "guild" my life in society, I accept all laws. And am thankfull that there is ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.
Granted, people make mistakes, (even lawyers ;) ) I dont think we should take the chance with those that are guilty. Otherwise it will be utter chaos, or Iraq. </font>

Being an idealist doesn't mean you don't live in the now. It means you live in the now, have a vision for the future and learn from the past. Balance.

In terms of social evolution, we have evolved from lawlessness to the current values we have. The creationist view is that we've descended into lawlessness. Given either, social evolution still stands, and the above post of mine iterated the removal of cannibalism, polygamy, incest and other elements as we've progressed socially.

When we "descend" into violence, we most imitate the animal world. Regression. Instinct overrides concious will. Short term satifaction overrides long term planning. Yet conscious will and longer term planning are part of what seperates us from the animal kingdom. Both are what lead us into society with it's survival benefits in the first place. Violence against it's own kind, is what ostracises and isolates an individual human, which ultimately removes it's evolutionary superiority. Society.

<font color=deepskyblue><font color=yellow>Yorick</font> - I appreciate your idealism and I agree it would be a better world if we could get every living human to accept the absolute sanctity of every other person's life.

I do find your comments somewhat insulting in one respect, though, in that you seem to be placing the blame for the loss of "sanctity of life" solely on the shoulders of the U.S. Comments such as our history leading to "rampant gun ownership" make it sound as if the devaluation of human life is somehow the fault of America. That's a rather bold implication from someone whose nation began as a penal colony. ;)

I do agree with your thoughts regarding the excessive violence in movies and video games. I've noticed that myself for many, many years. In ANY "action movie", you know before the movie starts that the "hero" will HAVE to kill the bad guy. As that concept became more popular, it wasn't enough for the bad guy to just be killed...no...now the bad guy must die in a very gruesome and painful manner in order to be "paid back" for all the evil they did to the hero. I will agree with you 100% that this is a disturbing trend.

But I simply cannot agree that the devaluation of human life is the fault (or result or whatever) of ANY one society.

As <font color=yellow>Pikachu</font> has stated (more than once), your idealism is admirable..but it is also impossible to achieve. Because it is an inherent part of human nature that at least some people will NOT value another person's life, regardless of any values, morals, education, or social guidance handed down or enforced by the governing body of that society.

Human violence dates all the way back to Genesis. Long before Hollywood created violent movies, long before guns were even invented (and thier ownership argued over), long before any wars of any type against other nations or tribes, long before there were any of the myriad other social factors that are currently blamed for violence in society. Long before ANY of that ocurred...Abel was struck down and murdered by his own brother out of petty jealousy.

It is a part of human nature and that part (however small) will NOT be removed until after the Second Coming. Then - and only then - will we finally achieve the ideal society of which you speak. I agree that it is noble to strive for that ideal, and there is certainly room for improvement in our current society, but the ultimate goal you seek simply cannot (and will not) be achieved without divine intervention. Until then, we do the best that we can, but we live with the reality that we may have to defend ourselves against those that do not believe in the sanctity of another human's life.</font> [img]graemlins/verysad.gif[/img]

<font color = lightgreen>This is common motif used in myths, fairy tales, etc. throughout human history; we have only updated it to be projected onto a flat screen. These heroes and villains in movies are not real even though they represent something real. By watching the hero defeat--and usually kill--the villain out of revenge, justice, etc. we receive reassurance that those who commit evil will be punished and are warned against committing those acts ourselves. Simply morality plays and nothing more.
I wouldn't worry too much about there being "too much violence" in movies and games. The real versions of common fairy tales were quite gruesome, and I don't think they turned generations of people into berserk killing machines or sadistic perverts.
***************

My complaint about the death penalty process as it exists now is that some of the people sentenced to death have been in the prison system for many years. True, they should be allowed to appeal a death sentence, but how long do taxpayers have to foot the bill for that person's housing? If the State is going to sentence someone to death, set a maximum number of appeals/years and, when that time has run out, put them to death.
Because there are so many cases where people have been wrongly convicted of murder and that some murderers would not be repeat offenders (those who commit crimes of passion), I have always favored exile. Pick a remote tropical island, turn them loose, and leave them isolated and alone; patrols via boat will insure that no one escapes. Not only have problems been removed from society, but someone wrongly convicted could always be returned.</font>

Being an idealist doesn't mean you don't live in the now. It means you live in the now, have a vision for the future and learn from the past. Balance.

<font color=lime>Being a realist means the same thing. I just see what is obtainable. This does'nt mean I dont wish things we're different in the world, I just dont waste my time trying to change what has taken nature millions of years to accomplish. Human nature. </font>

In terms of social evolution, we have evolved from lawlessness to the current values we have. The creationist view is that we've descended into lawlessness. Given either, social evolution still stands, and the above post of mine iterated the removal of cannibalism, polygamy, incest and other elements as we've progressed socially.

<font color=lime>Let me repeat:
"We have needed laws (morals) to progress as a society, and being social creatures have allowed that. So therefore, in my opinion, living and relying on laws to "guild" my life in society, I accept all laws. And am thankfull that there is ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime". </font>

When we "descend" into violence, we most imitate the animal world. Regression. Instinct overrides concious will. Short term satifaction overrides long term planning. Yet conscious will and longer term planning are part of what seperates us from the animal kingdom. Both are what lead us into society with it's survival benefits in the first place. Violence against it's own kind, is what ostracises and isolates an individual human, which ultimately removes it's evolutionary superiority. Society.

<font color=lime>Well, I think your wrong. We are just animals that evolved bigger brains and have adapted to our envirements and thus created social law to get along, to evolve further.
We are entering that whole other area now Yorick, and I dont wish to derail the thread. If its going to be a debate on capital punishment, lets keep it at that. Bygons... </font>


</font>[/QUOTE]

[ 11-29-2003, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

Well the conversation is about America. America has the death penalty, Australia doesn't. Australia is making it's attempts by outlawing gun ownership and banning the death penalty.

However, you mention the penal colony and you are more on the mark than you realise.

A nations origins play a part in the collective psychology. Newcomers have to react with assimilation or rejection of the existing culture.

Additionally, I would argue Australia is much older than the 200 years of European colonisation. We have owned our Aboriginal past, giving land rights back, giving Aboriginals preferred status, autonomous areas the size of European countries.

However... the penal colony. What values that brought was a huge "authority problem" most Australians seem to possess. As well as an egalitarianism and rejection of the English class system. A "tall poppy syndrome" where those that suceed too much, or rise to far, are cut back down. A love for the underdog, the battler who loses trying his heart out. It brought "the tyrrany of distance" into the Europeans who came here. It also, for me, gives me a point of connection with African Americans here. The original Australians (a large amount Irish) were sent there against their will, in chains, subject to horrendous abuse, torture and pain at the hands of their English gaolkeepers.

Just as an individual is shaped by their past and the situations they are born into, so is a nation - a collection of individuals.

Land shapes collective psychology.
Origins and history shape collective psychology.

I found Singapore to value conformity far more than Australia or America. Why? The fledgling nation was kicked out of Malaysia. Them against the world. They pulled together and lifted Singapore into economic prosperity.

Whereas Australia and America are huge lands that were opened up by pioneers with individualist, nonconformist streaks. Look at Salt Lake City for example. Founded by idealists who didn't fit into mainstream America.

Therefore, the values are what suceeds. What works. "Mateship" pulled Australians through convictdom, two world wars and Vietnam. It therefore is highly valued.

Guns pulled America through a war with England. They are forever enshrined in the constitution.

Can you not see this?

Russia was invaded constantly from the east. Incessantly. A prominent modern Russian once said "Russia has two friends. Her army and her navy". How a nation is forged shapes much. The Russians evened the score by expanding her territory eastward. Creating a buffer. The Cossacks went on the offensive.

So what happened in Communist Russia? A ring of buffer states in Eastern Europe, and Asia. Perpetual distrust.

Additionally we are focussing on America, because American culture is so globally dominant. Can any American ally make drugs legal? Hardly. Tasmania, a state in Australia once attempted it. Extraordinary pressure from Washington.

American values are transported via film and music and computer games. And MacDonalds. Cultural Imperialism Cerek.

Therefore what happens inside America affects us all outside it.

But in any case, I am in America now. The land built on immigrants? Immigrants bringing their values and culture to the shores? ;)

Oh Cerek.... South Australia, a state in the federation of Australia, never had convicts. Prior to federation Australia was a collection of various States in the British Empire.

South Australians actually have a different accent to the rest of Australia. More "English".