@izzythepush,
OmSigDAVID wrote:For instance, if u came to visit and u blew a stop sign in the street,
with no witnesses, for sure I wud NOT rat u out to the police. U 'd be safe.
izzythepush wrote:I don't know what sort of kinky sex you're into, but count me out.
I thawt that was very humorous. I got a good laff out of that!
Thank u.
izzythepush wrote:It's not about vengeance, it's about justice,
OmSigDAVID wrote:Please explain the difference, Izzy.
I wanna HEAR this; I do.
izzythepush wrote:The difference is, a man lost his life due to the negligence of another human being.
If that was one of my family members I would want vengeance, however,
as an impartial outsider I feel that he should face justice.
OK; help me out with this, Izzy:
u r telling us that something is
either "justice" or it is
unjust,
depending on whether
WHO administers it??
That is to say that, in your vu,
an act of vengeance is fair or it is
inequitable
depending on whether the person who administers it
is a private citizen or he is on the public payroll ????
Is that your position ???
izzythepush wrote:A man has died, if Swift doesn't go to jail,
it amounts to saying that Anderson's life means nothing.
If your negligent behaviour results in the death of others you should go to jail.
I think natural justice says as much.
Really???
For the sake of argument,
let us imagine that Barry
returned from death
(defined as no heartbeat, no respiration, no EEG for several minutes).
That has happened a lot in American hospitals; sometimes, in morgues,
if the corpse has not completely rotted away in the meantime, up to around an hour
(longer if submerged in cold water; of
unknown duration, if submerged in cold ale).
Now, Izzy, suppose that the newly re-alive Barry is heard
ROBUSTLY to declaim:
"Hay, I usually have 1 for the road, myself, unless I have
5.
Anyone can have an accident; no hard feelings, Tom.
By the way, that was really nice of u to go home n get help for me!
Sorry for any inconveniences. Here r
$5O. Have a few drinks on me"
and either he remains alive, or he resumes his death,
after explicitly
WAIVING retributive vengeance, perhaps
in front of 7 notaries public (each of whom has sworn him in).
Will that affect your vu of the morality of the situation??
We await enlightenment from England.
izzythepush wrote:Btw I notice you're being coy over I love Lucy.
Have I hit the nail on the head?
No, Izzy. I remember watching the very first episode thereof (probably in 1951),
but my memory is
vague enuf that I do not remember its specific plot.
I doubt that it was much concerned with lust for vengeance,
nor was the subsequent episode qua the birth of Little Ricky.
I remember humor qua rehersal for departure for the hospital
with accidental abandonment of Lucy in her apartment
in the Mertz's apartment building, but no lust for vengeance.
(Incidentally, thay hired an imposter to play Little Ricky.
The real one did not participate until he was near adulthood.)
My cheering was vindictive, for the electrocutions of Julius & Ethel Rosenberg in Sing Sing.
I harbored very
intense anger, hatred,
abhorrence beyond ineffability, fear and loathing
toward the International Socialists, led by Comrade Stalin.
(I did not think much of the nazis, either.) If I coud have, I
WOUD have slow roasted them over a BBQ pit.
I remember from the news of the time, that in Russia,
there were more promotional placards with the visages
of the
Rosenbergs than of
Stalin.
Most of the time, I support the 8th Amendment,
but the Rosenbergs tested my confidence in it.
(U know, Izzy: u have failed to adduce a moral argument
that is available to u, in support of retribution, to wit:
in default of government 's avenging Barry upon Tom,
the natural right to get even
REVERTS to Barry
or to his surviving friends n
surrogates.)
David
