Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[roguim]

@Balagor

You're welcome, but don't need to thanks, as i've said before this is a very hard subject with many factors and variants, so it's not someone blame if forgot some points, I mean we are talk about human behavior one of the most complicate things!

[Balagor]

Yes, humans are a very difficult and various species to studie.

Animals of the forrest seem far less complicated. But even her death

has no relevance.

[Deleted54170User]

@Pagafyr

I have a little difficulty to follow you, or maybe we misunderstand eachother. I never talked about crimals being judged by peoples from their own group.

Besides that I think we agree. :rolleyes:

 

It is most likely that we agree. Almost to the point of like minds which can cause two people to find the inner thought lingering that defines part of our nature. That nature is to be, "the dominant one".

 

A short quip for your entertainment: Two children spied an apple and both had a similar desire, "They wanted the apple." Their innocent minds were challenged and they drew upon their limited wisdom to see who could acquire the apple via their various traits. The obvious banter of adults the two children did not fully comprehend emerged in the scenes which provided the parents a humorous satire until Mom intervened and cut the apple in half giving each one part.

 

End of battle. To be continued...Not!

[species5478]

I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye".

not in christianism.

the ten commandments say: You shall not murder.

without limits.

 

and i could quote Ghandhi: An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.

 

My post might appear funny, because for some reason, I can edit comments in these post boxes, but I can in others? Anyway, back to the issue...

 

My point about the Bible, is not really about what it says. "It" can say you have the right to kill. "It" might say that you don't. There's a religious point of view that should be considered. And then there's a military view. And then there's the civilian view.

 

But you are right. The ten commandments state, that you should not kill. God also appointed Moses to help kill thousands of Egyptians with water though, right before telling him, "Though shalt not kill"...I bet the Egyptians wish Moses got that message just a wee bit earlier...

 

As for Ghandhi, I don't know much about him. I do know, that he was a man of peace, and should be respected for that. And as much as I may agree with his quote, there's always someone out there, who exists on the opposite spectrum of what Ghandhi believes. I can't change them. Neither can you. So the question then becomes, what do we do with these people when they kill? Would Ghandhi say, "Let the serial-killer walk free?" Of course he wouldn't agree to the death penalty, but I think even he would believe in some form of punishment.

 

Hiroshima was not selfdefense, but a final test of 8 years work by Oppenheimer and Bohr.

And I do agree with your last line. In DK we also have unscrupulous swindlers, who ruin innocent peoples lives.

I would not miss such persons, should they die.

 

I respect your point of view Balagor, and enjoy disagreeing/agreeing with you. I did some some more research on the matter, and I think what you said is true. But I feel my position is reinforced by the history lesson that I underwent yesterday. It seems that America was losing the war with Japan. Our Naval, and Airforce was getting depleted, so they had to drop that Atom Bomb as a means of defending the home-front. But again, I think I might have strayed from the point...because I was trying to illustrate the different circumstances in which people kill. What "law", for instance, gives the military the right to kill just one man, let alone hundreds of thousands with an atomic bomb?

[jaysus]

well even if the us forces were GETTING depleted* the japanese forces WERE depleted YET...

 

*i sincerely doubt that, WW2 was basicly over, only some crazy japanese fanatics fought on, they could simply have transferred some of the european theatre troops over to japan, including planes and other schnitzels

 

anyway... humans have all right to kill other humans as they have the right not to do so, its a power given to us by nature and sometimes inevitable, just look at nature, famines for example, one fights another over a potato to survive...

however, most killings done in this world could be prevented and the reasons behind them are utterly disgraceful for our species and obviously moralic rotten, despisable killings they are...

death penalties for example are utterly insane if you ask me, as are wars, they serve no real purpose but to satisfy ones greed or hatred,

they dont solve problems like killing that guy who intends to rape your daughter or eat that very last potatoe you need for your kids...

 

(the potato example is crap btw, as humans we should actually be able to distribute the goods of which there are truly enough on this planet in a just or at least equal manner so that noone needs to starve but instead we hord rice and corn in the hopes for better stock market prices... insane! MADNESS!)

 

its actually quite an easy question as is everything in the world in regards to choice, just ask yourself:

"if everyone did that could mankind survive/prolong?"

(google "kant's categorical imperativ" for a detailed explanation of that... some complicated and crazy old school philosophy dude but simply perfect)

 

@moses

comes down the holy mountain with his commandments and what does he do? hes sees some party folks and kills em... hypocrite to the extreme imo and the worst of the three prophets from "the book" (jesus and mohammed were the other two)

 

@ghandi

he was quite cool though kinda a moron, he more or less created the seperation of india into a bunch of countries that would love to kill each other and which actually have bloody nukes... well before that they actually did it, kill each other i mean, lol, so maybe it wasnt that bad ;)

[Deleted54170User]

I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye".

not in christianism.

the ten commandments say: You shall not murder.

without limits.

 

and i could quote Ghandhi: An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.

 

My post might appear funny, because for some reason, I can edit comments in these post boxes, but I can in others? Anyway, back to the issue...

 

My point about the Bible, is not really about what it says. "It" can say you have the right to kill. "It" might say that you don't. There's a religious point of view that should be considered. And then there's a military view. And then there's the civilian view.

 

But you are right. The ten commandments state, that you should not kill. God also appointed Moses to help kill thousands of Egyptians with water though, right before telling him, "Though shalt not kill"...I bet the Egyptians wish Moses got that message just a wee bit earlier...

 

As for Ghandhi, I don't know much about him. I do know, that he was a man of peace, and should be respected for that. And as much as I may agree with his quote, there's always someone out there, who exists on the opposite spectrum of what Ghandhi believes. I can't change them. Neither can you. So the question then becomes, what do we do with these people when they kill? Would Ghandhi say, "Let the serial-killer walk free?" Of course he wouldn't agree to the death penalty, but I think even he would believe in some form of punishment.

 

Hiroshima was not selfdefense, but a final test of 8 years work by Oppenheimer and Bohr.

And I do agree with your last line. In DK we also have unscrupulous swindlers, who ruin innocent peoples lives.

I would not miss such persons, should they die.

 

I respect your point of view Balagor, and enjoy disagreeing/agreeing with you. I did some some more research on the matter, and I think what you said is true. But I feel my position is reinforced by the history lesson that I underwent yesterday. It seems that America was losing the war with Japan. Our Naval, and Airforce was getting depleted, so they had to drop that Atom Bomb as a means of defending the home-front. But again, I think I might have strayed from the point...because I was trying to illustrate the different circumstances in which people kill. What "law", for instance, gives the military the right to kill just one man, let alone hundreds of thousands with an atomic bomb?

 

 

Hey! All...

Are you reading the text from the original bible in its ancient dialect, a 4000 year old language, and giving it careful consideration to be allowable in English, or are you assuming that the text from a translation in another language is accurate enough to be taken for granted?

 

If you are going to use the dialog it would be best if you have a clear understanding of the Original Bibles meaning's from those minds who wrote the original, and not base your opinion's on some translation that is imperfect because the person learned the language when it was considered a Dead Language which they were barely able to translate with the help of someone who claimed to be efficient in the old language. I ask, "does anyone presently know of what the original authors thoughts were, how they perceived the world, and the way people thought when that Original Bible was written?"

 

Otherwise you have no premise for your discussion with which to use it as a reference book. The King James Version, the Mormon version, and any other that was translated into English UK or English US is likely flawed or maybe enhanced enough to be a better reference. As long as the linquists did an exemplary job and did not put their assumed thoughts of meanings into the work then it could be acceptable. To believe the works to be so clean as not to have assumed meanings mixed in though presents a problem. The problem that linguists deal with every day is, "They are "NOT" sure we even think alike enough with the ancients to be able to comprehend their works.

 

Be careful when you use dialog that is translated from ancient languages for it may not mean what you think. And it is always recommended that the readers of the Holy Bible read it more than once so that any interpretations they might think they find is sound be examined again to confirm whether, as they age and their minds mature, if the meanings that they derived from readings still hold the same sound meanings in their thought.

[rebalious]

You guys should know religion=banhammer

Even when you are careful with your arguments.

Just drop the bible references, its for your own good.

 

Also "Mahatma" Mohandas Ghandhi ftw

[AncientSpaceAeon]

I'm not familiar with other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible states justice should be delivered in equal amounts. "An eye for an eye".

No, I think maybe the Bible meant that God deliver justice equally. But I think forgiveness should be above justice, but that doesn't mean the wrong will not be punished (but avoid death penalty if possible).

[Balagor]

No matter how ill translated books we have to day, it does not matter.

They are translated with our minds, in our time, and if it fits into our way

of living/thinking we can use all ancient books.

 

True we lived different some thousand years ago. Killing others was different.

But I speak of today.

We are mammils, and one of the characteristics that seperates us from other mammils (many characteristics)

is our emotional abilities.

 

True we killed each other for food thousands of years ago, but what makes us human today, is that we (or should)

care about each other.

 

Another characteristica however is our selfisness, wich from time to time conflicts with all other characteristics

thus creating the many conflicts leading to crime/war/killing/death penalthies etc.

[jaysus]

mammals have emotions and all that stuff too... there is nothing that distinquishes us from bonobo apes but our over time grown knowledge and ability to create lots of tech out of that knowledge, but given the same knowledge apes can do exactly the same... bonobo apes for example can play packman, drive cars and even start fires...

dolphins kill for fun, chimpanzees procreate for fun, a dog can be sad or jealous and so on...

our brain is simply a tad larger, but then that of whales is larger than ours and even has more parts of which we dont even know what they are good for...

 

 

True we killed each other for food thousands of years ago, but what makes us human today, is that we (or should)

care about each other.

 

that is true, all social networks have that characteristic, however all those networks also have the characteristic of being jerks towards other social networks (another tribe, group, nation, etc)

 

the thing is we just need somin that makes us feel as belonging together and not being entities of our own, the easiest way for that is a common enemy, aliens for example or the ruskies back in the cold war, nazis during WW2 and so on...