The right to take his own life?

If your point of vu [sic] were offered to the electorate
in a referendum, being opposed by that of 505,
who 'd u [sic] expect to win ?

stuh505 wrote:

The shooter in this case is obviously beyond any type of rehabilitation and is a serious threat to other peoples' lives. It would be completely idiotic to waste money in an attempt trying to rehabilitate such as lost cause, and insane to release him back into the public.

Quote:

What if all that would be required to make Shooter a productive member of society
was to give him some medication?

Would you still want to terminate him?

Society already has enuf productive members; we don 't need one more.

The decent population has already been sufficiently afflicted
by psychopaths who 've forgotten to take their medication.
Thay r too dangerous to have around.

We have a right to be defended from violent criminals;
that 's Y we invented government.
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If your point of vu [sic] were offered to the electorate
in a referendum, being opposed by that of 505,
who 'd u [sic] expect to win ?

Quote:

Given its recent track record, I have given up hope that the American electorate
will ever make an informed, rational choice.
I would, therefore, expect it to make the wrong decision,
just as you and stuh have done.

An an informed, rational choice does NOT involve self-sacrifice,
nor the sacrifice of one 's loved ones,
for the beneifit of violent predators;
( especially not demented ones,
whom the electorate shud deem the same as wolves or cougars ).

Quote:

I'll only add that you should consider yourself fortunate
that literacy tests for voters have been abolished.

For many decades I spelled the way that u do,
b4 I repudiated that paradime, as being offensive to sound reasoning,
in that it is inefficient, wasteful and abusive of children.

However, YOU r welcome to harbor waste and illogic
close to your bosom.
David

joefromchicago, I find your argumentative tactics to be morally reprehensible. That is, if you call slander and accusation and intentional misunderstanding to be "tactical." I have tried to reason with you, but you are clearly beyond reason -- and more critically, you are beyond respectful discussion and sharing of ideas. If there was an A2K block button, you'd be blocked now.

You may look down your nose at OmSigDAVID's writing style, but his posts are far more logical than yours.

joefromchicago wrote:

To give an example: Shooter kills Victim because he believes that god instructed him (through the voices in his head) to shoot Victim because Victim is possessed by demons. Did Shooter intend to kill Victim? Yes, of course he did. Is he legally responsible for murder? Probably not.

Under our laws as they now stand, Shooter would be given medical and psychological treatment. According to stuh, however, we should "terminate" him because he killed someone and he can't tell the difference between right and wrong. I find that position morally repugnant.

The shooter in this case is obviously beyond any type of rehabilitation and is a serious threat to other peoples' lives. It would be completely idiotic to waste money in an attempt trying to rehabilitate such as lost cause, and insane to release him back into the public.

Don't be shy -- the Firefox webbrowser can be extended with an optional client side "user ignore" function that works for phpBB boards like able2know.com. Install its Greasemonkey extension, download the "user ignore" script from userscripts.org, install it, restart Firefox, and you're ready to ignore.

I note a certain "clockwork" predictability from you.

joefromchicago, I find your argumentative tactics to be morally reprehensible. That is, if you call slander and accusation and intentional misunderstanding to be "tactical." I have tried to reason with you, but you are clearly beyond reason -- and more critically, you are beyond respectful discussion and sharing of ideas. If there was an A2K block button, you'd be blocked now.

You may look down your nose at OmSigDAVID's writing style, but his posts are far more logical than yours.

That's pretty cool...I have to check it out. I downloaded FX and that .js script, but how do you add users to the ignore list?

High Seas wrote:

Joe - excuse me but I have trouble following your legal reasoning: in the US we force mentally disturbed or retarded prisoners to take medications until they're deemed sufficiently "sane" to be executed, right? In fact it's my recollection that until recently we used to execute the retarded without regard to their mental incapacity - precisely Stuh's argument as I understood it.

Stuh argues that the focus should be on intent rather than responsibility. That is far different from the current state of the law.

To give an example: Shooter kills Victim because he believes that god instructed him (through the voices in his head) to shoot Victim because Victim is possessed by demons. Did Shooter intend to kill Victim? Yes, of course he did. Is he legally responsible for murder? Probably not.

Under our laws as they now stand, Shooter would be given medical and psychological treatment. According to stuh, however, we should "terminate" him because he killed someone and he can't tell the difference between right and wrong. I find that position morally repugnant.

High Seas wrote:

At the very least they should be allowed to commit suicide undisturbed - at least in countries without the death penalty.

I agree.

Chumly wrote:

I note a certain "clockwork" predictability from you.

If that is a reference to Joe, the explanation is simple enough: he has a point of view, at which he has arrived through a process of applying logic, and therefore, he is prepared not only to state his point of view, but to defend it on a logical basis. That is not to say that he is always "right," and those who take an opposing point of view are always "wrong." Especially in matters of opinion, it is often not possible to arrive at a conclusion about who is "right" and who is "wrong."

I find your criticism ironic, though, no matter to whom you addressed it. My experience of your "rhetorical style" is that you throw comments out there, and then desperately attempt to defend statements which you appear not to have given much thought before making them. Your most common method, in my experience, is to supply personal and idiosyncratic definitions of terms in an attempt to twist meanings to support your point of view. I can see little reason to take criticisms by you of anyone else's rhetorical method very seriously.

Stuh, whether that point of interest to you I don't know, but I (usually) defer to Joe on legal matters as he's a lawyer and I'm not.

Your confused interjectory whining is entertaining. Not that it should matter to you, but it's a pun in reference to my post re: "A Clockwork Orange" and his response to it, so you are about as far off base as it's possible to be, and no not my latest post in which I refer to it, but the one prior in this thread.

As to your other drivel, it's not yet worth the response, given you appear to have exempted yourself from the thread in which you seemingly base your specious claims. Address my last post in the thread in question, and naturally my further responses in the thread in question, in the germane context, if you have the whereforeall.