<font color=lime>I am pleased.</font>

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...18130909990001

Lord K, you might want to link directly to abc news site, because the way you've got it, only aol members can sign in and view it. ;)

But, I know what the article's about. I wonder if he'll be tried in other states still, or if it'll be a moot point now. Heck, we can try him in all those other states while he's rotting in jail awaiting execution. It'll keep him busy so he won't be appealing the hell outta this decision. ;)

<font color=lime>Ah. Did'nt realise, thanks Timber. Here ya go: </font>

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/24/sp...ial/index.html

[ 11-24-2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

Virginia plans to expedite the appeals process so they can execute him. They're thinking that they will put him to sleep in about three years. That's much too long a wait if you ask me.

<font color=lime>A waste of water, let alone the rest of the resourses it will take keep him alive for 3 years. </font>

Hey, he is going to pay the only acceptable price for taking a life. Nothing is so valuable. To take it is to forfeit it, for only one priceless item can pay the debt of another.

However, let's not go too far down the road of hate and rejoice here, folks. We support the death penalty based on logic, not on emotion, else it has no meaning other that perverse pleasure. ;)

And in taking a life how is society different from the criminal?

I am PRO-LIFE.

How's this for an ideal: <font color=yellow>Make the concept of a human prematurely ending another humans life incomprehensible.</font>

No death penalty, no abortion, no euthenasia, no murder, no war. No humans ending human life.

If it's going to start somewhere, it has to be from the top. The government should lead by example.

"It is wrong under ANY circumstance to end another humans life, so we will not either... no death penalty".

Therefore, we remove the vigillante, remove a certain scenario when a person takes the law into their own hands. The idea that somehow, they are justified in ending human life because there ARE cases where it is "o.k."

[ 11-24-2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

<font color=lime>Well, I wondered how long it would take to become a capital punishment debate. That was quick Yorick. :rolleyes: </font>

Oh, Lord K, don't blame Yorick -- I take responsibility for sending us there, albeit via inadvertant admonishment.

Yorick, I posted a very good counter-rebuttal to "two wrongs don't make a right" in GD, and I urge you seek it out.

But, here is the nub of it. It is wrong for me to imprison you in a place. It is wrong for me to take your money. However, these are perfectly acceptable punishments for the state to levy against you when you commit a crime. The state can fine you, and the state can imprison you.

The same is true with the death penalty. If the social contract makes it clear that an intentional killing (not in self-defense) is repairable/punishable by an equal sacrifice on your part (i.e. sacrificing your one equal priceless thing, your life) then there is nothing wrong with it. It is part of the social contract. Only a life may pay for a life. Accordingly, the state does not take your life, rather you take your life when you kill, as only your life can pay the price of what your crime "bought." The state merely enforces the social contract.

Sorry, but I do not foresee you overcoming this argument.

If we do not let emotion become involved (as my admonishment above indicates), then we realize that the D.P. is not "killing" by society, but rather society (with sadness) enforcing the social contract. Society may not like imprisoning you for life, but the rules say it must be done. Similarly, society may not like taking your life, but the decision was made by you when you "purchased" a life -- you knew the price.

I agree governments should "lead from the top." However, the paramount thing to do when leading from the top is showing that however sad the price may be, someone's willingness to incur the price must be accepted, else chaos results.

I want to point out that my theoretical underpinning for the D.P. is based on absolute knowledge of the crime. I hold that if you premeditated a killing, you are bound by the social contract, and rightfully subject to the D.P.

However, the current state of the D.P. in US states gives me pause. There is too much error for my tastes. Too many people are sent to the D.P. based on circumstantial evidence, in some cases, one or two testimonies (one of which is by the police) against the accused. Given the current rate of error in D.P. cases, I am adamantly against it as it currently exists. I don't know what the consensus of knowledge should be for the D.P., but I do feel that we should be at least 99.99% positive the guy commited the act. For me, any error in taking life via the D.P. should be at least one in ten thousand, and perhaps even more stringent. We should never, ever, ever take a life in the face of even miniscule uncertainty, for the ability to correct the social wrong is lost forever.

I wouldn't roll your eyes if I were you Lord K - this thread is about a man being executed and lots of people disagree with that. If you didn't want a discussion of whether its right or wrong then I have to wonder why you posted it here. Do you want us to make a seperate thread to say what we want in and to leave this one to you and Khazadman? That might smack just a little of pettiness. But hey, thats just my opinion. I don't agree with Yorick on much, but I agree with him on this. He's not being insulting, and if you don't like what he says then you can always post your reasons why.

<font color=lime>I can roll my eyes if I want to! ;) j/k :D
I understand what your saying Bruce. I really dont care if it does become a debate. Heck, maybe I wanted one myself...well, not really, but go for it. Sorry for the jab Yorick... [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Errr... I'm Barry. I can understand why you thought I was Bruce though. We have the same middle name. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway, I didn't want to come across as angry really, just saying that it seemed a little harsh to criticise Yorick for talking about the death penalty in a thread about the death penalty. To be honest, I'd have thought it was a pretty natural occurence.

LOL. Smartarse. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Thanks for the early a.m. laugh. :D

[ 11-25-2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

"No death penalty, no abortion, no euthenasia, no murder, no war. No humans ending human life."


A perfect little theory for a world full of thoughtfull and selfless people....if only we lived in one.


Not to oversimplify your point, but you do realize people die, right? That doesn't mean I have the right to go kill my neighbor for throwing cigarettes on my lawn (hey he's gonna die anyways right?) I just mean that while death shouldn't be taken lightly, we must also realize that it is a part of life and, in and of itself, is not taboo.

But then, thats more of an emotional argument....Timber has one of the absolute best arguments I ahve ever heard about the Death Penatly...he summed it up in this post, but his original is well worth a good read also.

Well...I've been trying to bite my tongue so we don't get off topic here...but I do have a few things I'd like to say (as well here others opinions about) regarding Yoricks context behing the following statement:

"No death penalty, no abortion, no euthenasia, no murder, no war. No humans ending human life"

NO Death Penatlty--already well covered..I'm going to leave it be

No Abortion--Way to heavy an issue about something no religious person and I will EVER come to agreement on due to differing fundamentals (i don't believe nuclei have souls)...so I'm going to leave it be also.

No Euthenasia--Simply put, but what right does anybody have to tell me I'm not allowed to die?! It's my life, my body, and if I choose to die it is my choice. More to the point, what of the cancer patient, in excruciating pain day after day who lives each moment of life like they are in hell? By what right does anybody have to tell this person they must continue suffering? If there is a logical reason for death--and I think there are a few--one of those reason must be the cesation of pain.

I doubt many religious people will agree with me on this...and in return all I do is reccomend they go visit terminal ward at a hospital. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" right? Well, I take this to mean many things, one of which is to not tell others to put up with suffering that they themselves have not experienced and cannot comprehend.

No Murder---well, i think we can agree on this one, but only within an evil context. But what of the father who kills a man attempting to rape his daughter? Is this murder? If so, was it wrong?

No War---Once again...and easy thing to say and agree too, but what of the realities of life? Should we have let the Nazi's run Rampant over Europe during WWII and declared "we don't believe in war so we're not going to fight"? Heres one with a larger grey area...you and your're tribe are starving to death and lack any shelter...across the plains lie another tribe that has enough food to feed them for next 30 years, and they have shelters aplenty...more caves than they need.

Your tribe is willing to share and live peacefully with the other tribe, but they will not share their food or land with you, and force you off should you intrude on their territory. Do you have the 'right' to take the food and shelter by force? If not the 'right' are you at least morally forgiven by whatever higher power is out there?

The reasons one commits murder may be different, but fundamentally the act of taking another’s life against their will is murder. (This is obviously how I define murder. This point could be argued extensively as murder does have multiple definitions. For instance, the act of taking a life unlawfully or putting an end to a life can also be construed as murder. Just thought I would clarify my definition before I stick my foot-in-mouth.)

I do not feel that murder is wrong though. It is just another act of nature running its course. While it is idealistically a good idea to remove all murderous intent from the world, realistically it would never happen, nor should it happen. Natural selection is part of life, and there will always be those who will choose to exert their opinions on the world forcefully. It is in our nature.

Problems would also arise when groups started an attempt to identify life. Look at abortion. Many believe a fetus is just a clump of cells that are not alive. Others believe the life to exist starting at conception. Where would we draw the line? At what point does it again become a debate of my rights vs. your rights? I cannot see society as a whole coming to any sort of agreement.

Nice post, but I'd like to comment on this. The fetus is a life, a human, at conception under the law. If you don't believe me, watch the news for the next guy who kills a pregnant woman and gets a double homicide conviction. The abortion rule does not say the child is not a life. What it actually says is that when the child is a fetus, its right to live is outweighed by its mother's right to liberty and choice. There's one victory you can stick in your libertarian pipe and smoke, huh? ;)

Nice post, but I'd like to comment on this. The fetus is a life, a human, at conception under the law. If you don't believe me, watch the news for the next guy who kills a pregnant woman and gets a double homicide conviction. The abortion rule does not say the child is not a life. What it actually says is that when the child is a fetus, its right to live is outweighed by its mother's right to liberty and choice. There's one victory you can stick in your libertarian pipe and smoke, huh? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]But, there is still a common disagreement as to whether or not the fetus is alive. I understand that in the eyes of the law the fetus is a living human, but not everyone agrees with this assessment.

It should be stated that my opinionated views take place outside the law. Laws are nothing more than the accumulated opinions of various people, used to set a standard by which we live. As such, I do not use any laws as a basis for any of my opinions, though I may have an opinion pertaining to a law.

It may be a fact that a law exists, but that doesn’t mean the law holds any merit when composing an opinion unless you believe in the law.

<font color=lime>Uh, oops. Not sure why I thought you we're Bruce. It was late, must have been tired... :rolleyes: Sorry. :D </font>

I KNEW that punk was gonna fry!

I don't like the death penalty, it's just too easy for the guy. Just some gas and it's over.

I say put him in a small cell and leave him there in isolation for the rest of his life. He's going to have years to think about what he did. That's a lot worst punition than a painless sleep. If someone does not fear death, then he's getting no punition for his actions.

[ 11-27-2003, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

I don't know why so many people still believe in the death penalty. It dosn't justify killing someone because there're a murder. I am against the death penalty (extremly evil people are the few exceptions).

Loftis, I strongly disagree with your views on it. The price a murderor should pay is to spend the rest of their lives in prison locked up like an animal. This will make them really think about what they've done.

"you can put a man in prison, but you cant make him think"

parent: what have you done?! go to your room and think about this!
child: uh, let's see, i've got books, and tv, and i have time to exercise, dont have to do chores... yeah, okay, i'll go to my room! you really showed me!
parent: i just cant understand why i cant get through to him!

sorry, gab, but do you really believe that? cuz 1) it aint a deterrent, B) it means the criminal gets off better than the victim, and III) society foots the bill for their holiday. do you call that justice?

<font color=deepskyblue>I agree. <font color=tan>Timber</font> gave an excellent summation as to why the Death Penalty is an acceptable punishment for the crime of pre-meditated murder (murder being the only crime for which the DP can be considered, AFAIK). He also gave a very good explanation of why the current circumstances of the DP need to be re-evaluated. Made me reconsider MY position on the issue. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Actually, <font color=yellow>Pikachu</font>, the argument of whether or not the fetus has a soul is irrelevant. What IS relevant are "signs of life", and every fetus has a discernable heartbeat at the "age" of 7 weeks! That is an irrefutable medical fact. My main argument against abortion is exactly what <font color=tan>Timber</font> mentioned earlier...that the courts (and most pro-abortion folks) claim that the rights of the mother outwiegh the right of the fetus - saying that the mother "has a right" to make a decision concerning her own body. I'm sorry, the mother had a chance to make a decision about her body several weeks BEFORE the fetus was conceived and reached the age of 7 weeks. Except in the case of rape or incest, I feel the mother already made her "body choice" and should live with the consequences of her decision. Abortion is very rarely a case of preventing a medical emergency on the part of the mother and more often an alternative means of birth control.

For the record, however, I do acknowledge that I do not have the right to tell the mother she cannot have an abortion. As much as I disagree with the decision, I would NOT vote to make abortions illegal.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>I agree with you 100% on this issue. I don't agree with suicide in general, but I do agree with your statement that the individual should be allowed to make the decision for themselves - especially in special cases such as the cancer patient living in chronic pain.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Again, I agree with you completely. I consider murder to be one of the worst crimes a person can commit. However, I will be the first person to pull the trigger if someone is threatening my family - especially one of my children. I also accept that I will have to face the consequences for that decision in this life and the next.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Another good argument and example of why war might be justified under certain circumstances. One option that it does not consider, however, is that the first tribe could try to move and relocate to another area with adequate resources that is not part of another tribe's territory. Of course, that may or may not be a feasible option in real life.

And - if you look throughout history - I believe you will discover the underlying goal of most wars was exactly what your example touched upon - the expansion of territory and acquisition of natural resources.</font>

Come on, there is a big difference between being isolated in am empty small cell with no human contact for 50 years and being grounded in your room for a night by your mother...

I agree with Luvian. Come on Sultan, do you think being in prison for 40 years is the same as being inside your room for a day??

I hate the death penalty because it's more of a revenge thing rather than justice. We get to kill you because you killed someone else. Dosn't that sound at least a little like revenge? Besides, that's not going to bring the victim(s)back.

If freedom is so devalued, and not a cherished gift, which when taken away can be unbearable.... why have so many willingly died in pursuit of it?

The proof is, that many would prefer and have preferred death, than to live without freedom.

My arguments against the death penalty have nothing to do with punishment, fear, retribution or anything to do with the crime. I am not focussing on the problem. Not focussing on a way to deal with the person committing the problem, but focussing on a solution reality of establishing an increased value on human life throughout all society. All humanity.

No death in war, suicide, abortion, euthenasia, death penalty, murder, assassination.

No cases where human hands are justified in taking a human life. Family, friend foe, self, criminal, enemy.

[ 11-28-2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I'm not quite getting your point here...as it stands I can take it to mean two things

1) You are stating general assumptions about a perfect world. To this I have to say that it is, in a way, insulting. Of course we we all like to live in such a world...such things don't need to be argued...and to bring them up is to imply none of us would want the things you mentioned.

2) You are making a general statement that all of the items you mentioned are wrong and that *anyone* who does not agree with you or commits these acts is immoral. If that is the case please read my earlier arguments. The realities of life cause good ppl to do things they normally wouldn't do...because sometimes "peace" is simply another word for surrender.

There are bad people in this world, and giving in to them would make the world a worse place...not a better one. Further...in a world with no Euthenasia there must first be--imo--a world with out cancer and suffering. An ideal is great, but it is useless without placing it in context of reality.

I'm not quite getting your point here...as it stands I can take it to mean two things

1) You are stating general assumptions about a perfect world. To this I have to say that it is, in a way, insulting. Of course we we all like to live in such a world...such things don't need to be argued...and to bring them up is to imply none of us would want the things you mentioned.

2) You are making a general statement that all of the items you mentioned are wrong and that *anyone* who does not agree with you or commits these acts is immoral. If that is the case please read my earlier arguments. The realities of life cause good ppl to do things they normally wouldn't do...because sometimes "peace" is simply another word for surrender.

There are bad people in this world, and giving in to them would make the world a worse place...not a better one. Further...in a world with no Euthenasia there must first be--imo--a world with out cancer and suffering. An ideal is great, but it is useless without placing it in context of reality. </font>[/QUOTE]1. How is it insulting? I don't see it. If people want a world where no human ends human life, why are there death penalty advocates? Why are there people who say killing in self defense makes a killing "o.k."? Why are some suggesting euthenasia and abortion and suicide are all acceptable elements of human society?

I am drawing a hard line in the sand. No grey areas, in an effort to present a shift in values to achieve a certain end. Make no taking of human life acceptable. Let there be no question in a persons mind, that when confronted with an issue, they see actively effecting the end of human life as an option.

For, if a democratic government can do it, why not an individual? If a doctor or lawmaker or mother can decide when it's o.k. to end human life, why not anyone else?

Of course people carry guns to use the threat of ending life as a deterrent. But what if there was no threat to your own life? What if human life was so valued that if someone broke into your home, you knew the person wouldn't kill you? What if the burglar knew you wouldn't kill them?

It is a solution. Lower the expectation of negative consequences. Raise the value, the fundamental value in human life.

This is a solution to achieving a certain end.

Governments should lead by example. That is true leadership. By example, not by directive. How can a government say "Our society shouldn't kill each other" and then kill certain sections of that society? Hypocrisy.

Movie makers should take a similar initiative. Society is increasingly desensitised to violence and death through thre proliferation of it in film, and the unbalanced covering of it in the news media.

How many births make it on the front page? How many murders? What is the greater miracle?

Part of the "deification of rarity" underpinning capitalism that ends up putting rare occurences in our face as though they are commonplace, and devalues the everyday miracle into almost nonentity simply because it is so common.

Like eyesight. How many of us fortunate enough to see, walk around constantly in awe that we are seeing colours and shapes? It's a miracle. "Oh but it's a little thing"

Tell the blind man that sight is a "little thing". Ask a blind man what they'd give to be able to see.

"Kill Bill" is by all accounts the latest film to have so much violence it is humorous.

And yet America has problems with violence.

Death penalty, violent films, gun ownership, nation forged through revolutionary violence, nation solidified through civil war violence, human life devalued into slavery, human life devalued through abortion and euthenasia (if a life is unwanted or a burden it's expendable right?)

Anyone see a trend? Anyone see the commonality?

<font color=yellow>Making the value of life SUBJECTIVE allows people in a given situation to make a decision about the value of anothers life.

I am advocating removing that from a persons decisionmaking power. Establishing an objective fundamental value to human life, so that no-one, ever can say that a human ending human life is justified.</font>

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".