Killing people is the best solution.

Quote:

Very insightful post, David.

U r very kind

Quote:

I think the problem has intensified
since pop culture has portrayed sex as a recreation first,
not primarily for pro-creation.

Which problem do u have in mind ?

Quote:

I do not believe that two people in love that are committed
to each other in marriage are going to despise the symbol
of their love, their child, and kill it.

I imagine that u will get something of a bell-curved distribution,
or other shaped distribution. I deny that thay will ALL see
the situation the same way. There r many people with many
different opinions, some of whom agree with u.

Quote:

That is not a normal thing to do,
it doesn't seem logical to me.

I suspect that u r correct,
that it is not the statistical norm.
Whether it is LOGICAL depends upon evaluation
of several factors, some of which I will discuss hereinbelow.

Quote:

It would be akin to killing themselves, symbolically and in reality.

From that thought, I must respectfully dissent.
Some people (like me, for instance) are very pleased
to have NO children n don 't wish to lose that freedom
and protection.
I am pleased to NOT have someone lurking around
who stands to profit from my demise,
which will be MORE profitable, the SOONER it happens;
i.e., being a parent has a built-in conflict of interest.
(For instance, I recently read of a guy convicted of contracting
a hit on his brother because he had hit the lottery, and the convict
had hoped for an inheritance; that applies to children too.)

Each time I see a patricide in the news,
I am very pleased and satisfied to know that regardless of other
hazzards, at least I am safe from THAT.
He can 't take me out, if he was never born in the first place.

The absence of the financial expenses of a child or children
(including health maintenance and full education)
will aggregate to my benefit; I get to enjoy my own property,
and unlike income, savings are not taxable.

Additionally, if I had a wife whom I loved,
SHE woud be safe from his greed too,
and she 'd not have had to endure pains of childbirth.

To those considerations, I 'll add the following:
there is a potential for differences of personality
that can be irritating, on a long-term basis.
Altho I had a peaceful relationship with my own father,
we did not see eye-to-eye; we had radically different values & tastes.
I am a greedy conservative Republican; he was a stingy Roosevelt Democrat.

I 'd feel bad to know or suspect
that after my demise, my estate woud be applied
to purposes that I philosophically oppose, but that my son might support.
It woud not be enuf to emplace prohibitions in my will;
that woud not be effective. I really LIKE having no children.


David

Eorl,
I surmise that your opposition to capital punishment
is that the criminals whom we woud thereby kill are HUMAN --
i.e., that for some unexplained reason, HUMANs
shoud be immune from the death penalty, merely because
thay belong to the same species as the victim.

I challenge that.
If a human commits an offense, then it becomes appropriate
for the victim thereof or his designee (government or someone else,
if government defaults in its duty)
to avenge the victim -- to get even for him.

THAT is the reason that we created government;
(that and repelling enemy raids or invasions).

David

Naturally, I won't be shocked to see some Americans outraged at my suggestion that there could be an authority outside their own domestic government.

We've been here before of course, and you'll note that I've modified my previously used "most Americans" and replaced it with "some Americans" and that would be thanks to you. Give me credit for progress?

Look, I really believe that "some Americans" don't really think the United Nations charter on human rights is as dear to them as their own democracy and constitution, in fact it doesn't even factor into the argument much.

American nationalism (and individual American State loyalty) is very strong, and that brings weakness as well as strength. (I am somewhat anti-nationalist, but not the least bit racist)

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Eorl,
I surmise that your opposition to capital punishment
is that the criminals whom we woud thereby kill are HUMAN --
i.e., that for some unexplained reason, HUMANs
shoud be immune from the death penalty, merely because
thay belong to the same species as the victim.

I challenge that.
If a human commits an offense, then it becomes appropriate
for the victim thereof or his designee (government or someone else,
if government defaults in its duty)
to avenge the victim -- to get even for him.

THAT is the reason that we created government;
(that and repelling enemy raids or invasions).

David

Quote:

There are a few faulty steps of reasoning here.

The most obvious is that you wrongly assume all people want,
expect, deserve and have an inborn right to "vengeance".

Close, but no cigar.
A victim of abuse is invested with a right to get even
(i.e., vengeance) upon the occurrence of that abuse, not before.

Quote:

You may think so, but it is an opinion.

Yes; its my opinion that its cold at the North Pole, too.

Quote:

I think they have have a right to life above all other rights
(given that I see all rights as ultimately arbitrary anyway).

I dispute that there are gradations or degrees of having a right
to anything. Anyway, tho thay certainly had that right
BEFORE committing the offense in question, thay can FORFEIT that right,
and also during perpetration of the offense itself,
those ritghts are in a state of forfeiture, subject to the defensive rights of the victim.

Quote:

The United Nations (since 1948) and two-thirds of the countries
of the world see it my way. I know that's partly an ad populi,
but I'm just pointing out that I'm not being weirdly radical about that.
(Naturally, I won't be shocked to see some Americans outraged
at my suggestion that there could be an authority outside their
own domestic government.)

Naturally, I join in such outraged rejection and deny any existence thereof.
Note also that I have no respect for the United Nations.

Quote:

Next you assume the reasons for the existence of government
are the reasons you are prepared to tolerate one. In fact
governments exist for a vast variety of reasons,
depending on whether you live in Monaco or Iran.

I was just arguing from John Locke 's "State of Nature".

Quote:

David, I enjoy your posts, they are fascinating in regard to their honesty, etc.

Thank u

Quote:

I don't know if I answer all of your questions or not, but one was
in regard to the "problem," you asked what was it. It is the problem of abortion,
the issue that it presents to society.

With a higher moral standard practiced, the issue would be
much smaller and easier to manage, and it would be less of an issue politically.

I am first and last an Individualist, libertarian, anti-societarian,
keenly aware that society (as its name implies) is created by
that association of INDIVIDUALS, in the absence of whose affiliation,
society woud not exist; therefore: society is the baby,
the child of the Individuals by whom it is created,
and society shoud look up to its creators like gods,
honored to worship at their feet.

As Individuals, we need to be aware that our purpose in creating
society is for IT to SERVE US, not the other way around.





David

I agree with that too - and I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking retribution or justice when a wrongful act has been committed. I do also think, and actually take comfort in the fact that innocent people (if you don't want to use the word 'society') are then somewhat safer than they would have been if the perpetrator had been set free to go back out on the streets.

But I'm really conflicted about the whole issue- and moreso lately than I used to be. I used to know 100% that I was anti-capital punishment. And I think that I still am - but I've really started to question my definite anti stance on purely moral grounds.

I'm still anti-capital punishment as it has historically been implemented in the US. I do think it's a discriminatory and racistly employed method of punishment and I abhor it for those reasons-still. And I don't think it can ever be fairly and equitably administered in the US until all life is deemed equally valuable - and I think we're still a long way away from that happening.

But as I've been working with people in prisons, some of whom have murdered people, I've really been struck by the thought or sense that I've gotten that their criminal behavior is, in some instances, a compulsion. Yes, totally unplanned and in the heat of the moment. That's what makes it even scarier - and less able for them to control. If they'd been able to control it in the first place - they wouldn't have done these things.
And someone can take all the anger management classes that are available, but if they're either innately prone to, or even have been conditioned by environmental factors (such as these people who were religiously fanatical) to react to stress or perceived wrongs by striking out against other people, or to take justice into their own hands, or even more scarily, to achieve a sense of release or relief which is true of of sexually violent deviants, I just don't see that changing very much.

And it's with real sadness I say this. This is something I've learned in the last two years from working with some of these people. This guy I talked to right before Christmas who's in prison for murder told me he'd been passed by for parole again. He said he would not admit to the details of the murder - he admits murdering the person to the state, and to me, and to anyone who asks- but he won't admit to the details of how the state says he murdered the person- and this is holding up his parole.
Which is a good thing because as we talked, he started talking about his wish to have a relationship with someone when he got out of prison (not with me...with a nonspecific woman somewhere) and he said he hoped that he could find a woman who would not get jealous or make him jealous because he knew that that's what ALL women did and...blah...blah...blah...and I thought - he'll get out and he'll do the same **** again- and he's been in prison for thirty-odd years.

Some people are just really, really damaged. I don't know how or why - but I do know they shouldn't be walking around free. And if you've ever spent time working in a prison of ANY sort - much less a prison for maximum offenders who have murdered someone or are pedophiles...you'd know that's not the answer for their rehabilitation.
Because there's nothing for these people there, and there's nothing for them when/if they get out. Their families have abandoned them. They're put in hostels with other drug users and murderers and pedophiles...they still have their inappropriate urges and their inability to control their impulses- but now they don't have food or shelter (as in prison).
And we wonder why they reoffend.
Sometimes, I really do think it's more merciful to help them end it.
And if you talk to people in prison - those who are not accused of capital crimes themselves (and so don't have to worry about it) are very often in favor of capital punishment.
One guy said to me -'he shouldn't have killed someone if he didn't want to get nailed...it wasn't nice for him to do that'....and he smiled as he said it.

I don't know what the answer is- but I don't think it's as cut and dried as I used to think it was.

Thank you aidan, this is a great response, very honest and considered, from someone in a position to see at least some of the reality of this issue. I don't really want to argue with your opinion, because you've held a similar view as me and you aren't in the market to re-purchase!

...I find it bizarre to oppose capital punishment, while at the same time sanctioning killing the unborn...

As for Australians, it's actually a commonly held belief that we don't have a constitution (we do, no bill of rights though) but I'm guessing that most would see the United Nations human rights laws as higher and more important than our own. For example, when our own government commits acts that may conflict with UN law (such as invading Iraq with the US), we get annoyed about it. We see ourselves as a small piece of a much bigger, more powerful world (because it's basically true), whereas I think Americans see themselves as the center of the world, certainly of the "free world" (also because it's basically true) and that works against looking outside the US for guidance, moral or otherwise.