On Aug 26, 2:48 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Firstly, can I say that the American media coverage of this is INSANE. Why
> can't US news just report the news instead of trying to rile people up?
It might be that the news is considered entertainment, each network is
fighting for ratings, and those things are considered important. At
least then you have more than one monotone voice reporting it, and
reporting things from the left and the right angles of view. Not that
this is better necessarily. I like to sample from all the viewpoints,
then watch comedy central do their fake news show, which I find much
better.
It could be my imagination but there seems to be a certain universal
style to BBC type news. As if there is a standard that must be kept in
the vocal line and tone of every speaker. The same melody. Like the
same song over and over. Almost emotionless. I find it comical, but
I don't understand the English way about anything it seems. We are
comical too, but I guess in a different way.
>The
> British media has been having a good laugh about it ("tourism in Scotland is
> now doomed!"), but, honestly, dealing with that bullshit day in and day out
> would destroy my mind.
>
> 2009/8/26 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> > Well, Ian, it's good of you to deign to trifle with us lesser
> > developed beings. ;)
>
> I didn't say that. I said some people's notions of justice were
> under-developed. My knowledge of COBOL is also a little under-developed and
> I can't make pastry, but these things, as far as I see, don't make me a
> lesser being.
>
> > Certain crimes, in and of themselves, de-humanize the culprit.
>
> To try to deny that someone is human surely calls into question the
> integrity of your own humanity. De-humanising is a dangerous road to embark
> upon; I would not take one sorry step down that awful path. If you can
> successfully de-humanise a person in your mind -- either through
> compartmentalising or something more baneful -- then you are incapable of
> justice of any level of sophistication. Mercy and humanity are essential
> operating principles of justice in a modern secular society. Without them,
> you're dealing in something blunt, basic, and vindictive.
>
> > > I think people need to proceed more cautiously: search their own mind and
> > > decide whether they understand, intellectually and emotionally, the
> > > difference between justice and revenge. There's abundant evidence in this
> > > thread that people's notions of justice are -- and I'm being as polite as
> > I
> > > can muster -- under-developed.
>
> > ...and there it is, the false dichotomy. Justice or revenge? Which is
> > it? You MUST choose! No, actually, you don't have to choose between
> > those two at all, because you're missing a third alternative
> > altogether. Darwinian improvement of society.
>
> Darwinian "improvement" (your word) of society is inherent in both
> argument's modes of "justice". How could it not be; it's inherent in all
> things and is inescapable. There is no dichotomy here, but plenty of
> examples of "justice" sans mercy, sans humanity; that's vindictive, that's
> revengeful.
>
> > Why do I believe in the death penalty? It is neither for justice nor
> > for revenge. It is because we have identified a risk to society which
> > is so great that society deserves to be protected from it in the most
> > sure way possible. This is why I favor the death penalty for crimes
> > such as serial killers, sexual predators, mass killers (such as
> > terrorists) and the like, and NOT for single instances of murder. This
> > is not for justice, or revenge, but to permanently remove said threat
> > to society. Recidivism among each of these criminal types is near
> > 100%. There is no point in maintaining a false hope of
> > "rehabilitation".
>
> Well, at best, I can say that's a very "practical" take on things. However,
> life imprisonment does remove the threat to society too.
>
> It does sound like you have accepted the existence of "evil", which is not a
> mental leap I can make. There are plenty of motives for mass murder that I
> would say are explainable in far more satisfactory terms. Religious
> indoctrination. Psychological disorders. In each case, the mind, and thus
> the person, is damaged. Refusing to recognise that this is a human-being is
> inhumane and definitely unscientific.
>
> When wolves attack the village, we do not waver and
>
> > hesitate over killing "God's beautiful creatures", we band together as
> > a people and protect the tribe.
>
> See, I want to think you've got a better, more sophisticated, take on why
> this atavistic notion of justice still has a place in a modern society...
> and then you go and say something like that! :)
>
> > Four felonies, Ian, with some time involved, and I was 18. Is the
> > gradient of mercy only called into play with terminal illness?
>
> No.
>
> Ian
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
