Huh. Well, I don't know if you feel the same way about someone
who would kill me, JP, but in case you do, I hereby make a formal
request: I would appreciate it if you (or anyone else who has
similar ideas) would not take it upon yourselves to avenge my
death in the event I am murdered. I'm ethically opposed to that
kind of eye-for-an-eye attitude.
> That's life. It's a natural, built in response.
No, I doubt very seriously that it is.
> If someon is a .. defective unit .. if someone is so
> 'defective' as to 'kill'Deb' or 'kill brother', ordinary humans
naturally
> try to extinguish them.
Your black-and-white, almost behaviorist attitude is scary, JP.
Furthermore, by this line of reasoning, since you have also
killed a 'brother' (Deb's murderer), you too are now a "defective
unit" and should be extinguished.
Who gets to determine who is "defective" and "deserves" to die?
> I suppose the whole capital punishment thing is a sort of
perverted social,
> um, implementation of this natural quick-moment reaction.
Agreed. It's the same attitude that, IMO, makes capital
punishment so self-righteous: if "they" kill "us" it's a bad
thing, but if "we" kill "them" it's okay. However, I think it is
the attitude itself that is "perverted," not it's implementation
as capital punishment.
> I am curious as to how you feel .. no, what you would do .. if
someone
> killed 'me' so to speak, or say your sister, auntie, whatever.
Well, I know you were asking Deb, but I would:
Call the police. Mourn for the deceased. Continue to politically
work for better police protection, better justice systems, better
education (because there are good correlations that show it
decreases violence). Etc.
I'm sure in the heat of the moment, I might consider revenge, but
if I had 90 seconds to think about it, I know that I would
dismiss those desires.
The only time I would consider taking a life would be if it were
the only way to prevent someone in the act of attempting to take
another's life, and even then maiming force is far preferable to
deadly force. NEVER would I consider an "after-the-fact"
retributive strike appropriate.
> >I'm
> >fully aware of the philosophical reasoning behind the "right
to bear
> >arms" (I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand
it.)
>
> I think it's all got to do with fear of death.
>
> You have two choices in life ..
That's pathetically reductionist. I know you're going to think
it's just me being condescending, but I am sincerely sorry you
live with that kind of mindset.
>
> (1) a possibly short, brutal, life full of adversity,
challenge, forces
> acting against you, unperdictability .. and unboudned internal
freedom ..
> or
>
> (2) safety and long life accompanied by constant fear of death
/ pain /
> rejection by the girl in the coffee shop etc.
[snip]
> >But having been in a place with that
> >many people, that many firearms, and that much beer -- well,
that
> >is on my 'top 5 times when I was so scared that I almost
panicked'
> >list.
>
> Does it have anything to do with the guns? If you were at the
world police
> exposition, and there were 75,000 policewomen all with 9mm
guns, how would
> you feel? What about at a military parade with a thousand
soldiers?
I'd feel more comfortable at the police expo because the average
cop is better trained and more responsible with firearms than the
average handgun-wielding redneck at a NASCAR race. 75,000 *drunk*
policewomen with loaded weapons would send me running for the
hills, though. The military parade is pretty much a non-issue
because the military doesn't parade with loaded weapons. The
bayonets might make me antsy, but I can outrun a soldier--I can't
outrun a bullet.
-- Greg Ritter gritter@felix.vcu.edu ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter