THE MORALITY OF ANTICIPATORY DEFENSE

Killing murderers before thay can murder;
if that were possible,
by accurate pre-cognition, or by travel back thru time,

woud that be good or bad ?

I say it woud be good






WHATAYATHINK ???

Quote:

Killing murderers before thay can murder;
if that were possible,
by accurate pre-cognition, or by travel back thru time,

woud that be good or bad ?

I say it woud be good






WHATAYATHINK ???

I think it would be good. The Baby P(eter) case that's in the news over here elicited a response in me that surprised me - they've finally identified the mother of the baby and her compatriots in his systematic life-long (2 years) torture and murder, and yesterday they printed their pictures for the first time.
Apparently this little boy had his body slammed down over someone's thigh so that his back was broken in two places (each of the three of them are all saying the other actually perpetrated the abuse while they themselves just watched). I'm not clear if this was the final and fatal injury or not - he had bruises and injuries all over his body and during the time the abuse was happening, the mother was keeping up a constant stream on Myspace or facebook about how much fun she was having with her new boyfriend getting shitfaced with him every night. (Of course she failed to mention how they were using her child as 'entertainment' the whole time).
Anyway, when I looked into the dead eyes of those people in their pictures, all I could think is that everyone (including they themselves- at least two of them had been abused as children, the third who was the older brother of the boyfriend had been an abuser) would have been better off if they'd never been born.
I also sort of shocked myself by thinking and it was my first instinctive thought, 'You can tell by looking at those people they should not have been allowed to have a child.'
Not very politically correct - or libertarian- but that's what I thought.

Strange, David. That was the very subject of Medium last evening.

i gotta agree with david here, the world would be
a very peaceful place if everybody was put to death at birth

If youre talking about Dick's "Minority Report", remember, there were several flaws in the "precog" divisions methodology. For example, in the story, and the movie, if a future murderer would discover their own fate as determined by the committee of precogs, the perp could change the outcome, thus thwarting the usefulness of the precog division. In the story, it eventually resulted in the shutdown of the entire system.

the whole program was on shaky evidentiary ground anyway. All the DOD experiments with remote viewing or ESP were pretty much debunked.

Dave is right about this being a common Sci Fi thread.
Unlike "Minority Report", in Dave's senario, you are in the future
and know that the person is a killer, so you have proof of the crime.

This is more of a "Dead Zone" type of situation.
Of course, you also have the "Butterfly Effect" to be worried about.
If you go back in time and kill Hilter, does that mean that rational minds
take charge of the Nazi party, run a better war, finish developing
the A-bomb and take over the world?

Yes; long have we yearned and lusted for the secrets
of the dreaded Welch system of personal defense.

Why is that anti-liberal?

And why would everybody have to be put to death at birth?
Not everyone who's born goes on to murder someone.

I think it's a very interesting thought or concept.
I was thinking about it driving to work this morning, after answering
the initial post and I was thinking specifically of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris
and how if it could somehow have been known by their mothers or
fathers (or anyone for that matter) - what they would eventually do
at Columbine- would anyone have been able to bring themselves
to take action against them?

It sort of reminded me of a friend of mine whose brother drove drunk and killed a bicycler.
And this friend told me her mother (the mother of the drunk driver)
was sitting in the courtroom with the mother of the young man who was killed
(he'd been about the same age as her son) and she thought to herself,
'If my son had not been born - her son would still be alive.'
And I thought to myself then- would I rather be the mother of a person
who killed someone or the mother of a person who was killed by someone?

I don't know - but I think I might have been capable of murdering those people
who tortured and killed that baby myself

-
they removed some of his fingernails and toenails with pliers as entertainment...
and the upshot of the whole thing is - this mother got five years -
she's already served two. She could be out in three years and
then she'll be given a new identity, a flat with a panic button to
live in (as she's so unpopular now that they'll need to protect her
from vigilante justice) and all this is going to cost the taxpayers
over 1,000,000 pounds a YEAR!
So she tortures and kills her baby - spends five years in jail- and
then gets supported and protected the rest of her life.

I used to think I was a liberal - but if that's liberal - count me out....
(Sorry - but I just read this crazy stuff in the paper and it just seems so WRONG!)

*My business is going well - I've gained alot of new skills and new friends
and enjoy going to work everyday. Can't ask for more than that....how's your retirement?

aidan wrote:

Quote:

And why would everybody have to be put to death at birth?
Not everyone who's born goes on to murder someone.

Well, djjd put that there to mock the idea
(which is helpful in answering my question about liberal origins)