And to be fair the UK news is no better.
On 26 Aug, 23:30, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
